No More Excuses: Refusing to Condone Mere Carelessness or Negligence under the "Excusable Neglect" Standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)

By Weathersbee, Brett Warren | Vanderbilt Law Review, November 1997 | Go to article overview

No More Excuses: Refusing to Condone Mere Carelessness or Negligence under the "Excusable Neglect" Standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)


Weathersbee, Brett Warren, Vanderbilt Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION Rule 60(b)1 is an attempt to codify the equitable, common law practice of reforming judgments under special circumstances.2 The rule, inter alia, authorizes a court to relieve a party from a default judgment for "excusable neglect."3 This standard, however, is not defined in the rules, and courts have struggled with its meaning. Some circuits define the term liberally and often grant requests to vacate default judgments.4 Others adopt a strict interpretation and consistently refuse to vacate default judgments resulting from mere carelessness or negligence.5 Recently, in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership,6 the Supreme Court clarified the term "excusable neglect" under one of the Bankruptcy Rules. Given the differing goals and policies of default judgments and bankruptcies, as well as the internal problems of the decision itself, however, the decision should not be extended to determinations of excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1).

Part II of this Note examines the history of Rule 60(b), analyzing the background and source of original Rule 60(b), as well as the subsequent amendments to the rule. In addition, Part II describes the construction and application of Rule 60(b), outlining the remedial nature of the rule and the competing policy concerns of finality of judgments versus the preference for deciding cases on the merits. Part III discusses the inconsistent interpretations of "excusable neglect" under Rule 60(b)(1) in cases concerning mere carelessness or negligence. This section explores why some circuits consistently vacate default judgments except upon a showing of culpable conduct or bad faith, while other circuits refuse to vacate default judgments occurring as a result of mere carelessness or negligence. Part IV examines both the majority approach in the Pioneer decision and the dissent's concerns, paying particular attention to internal inconsistencies in the majority opinion. Finally, Part V addresses the inapplicability of Pioneer to the determination of excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). The Note concludes that courts should adopt a strict interpretation of "excusable neglect" and refuse to condone mere carelessness or negligence under Rule 60(b)(1).

II. HISTORY AND CONSTRUCTION OF RULE 60(b)

A. Source and Background of Rule 60(b)

Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court had the power to grant relief from a final judgment primarily during the term in which the judgment was entered.7 Otherwise, relief was available only in limited circumstances,8 through a process admittedly "shrouded in ancient lore and mystery."9 The procedures were so inflexible that many courts established local rules extending the term of court for a specified time from the entry of final judgment, to allow sufficient time for requests for relief.10

In response to this inflexible situation, the Supreme Court's Advisory Committee formulated Rule 60(b).11 In the rule's original form, the committee stated that the only basis for relief was "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect."12 The rule also contained a provision that it "[did] not limit the power of a court . . . to entertain an action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding."13 This provision preserved the old ancillary and equitable remedies and allowed a court to grant relief on grounds other than those specifically listed in the rule.14

Since 1937, Rule 60(b) has been amended three separate times.15 The primary changes abolished the old ancillary and equitable remedies,16 enlarged the stated grounds for relief,17 and eliminated the qualifying pronoun "his" from the rule so as to include the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect of others as a basis for relief.18 The rule, as it now reads, contains six clauses and lists fourteen grounds on which a party may base a motion for relief.19

B. Construction and Application of Rule 60(b)

When formulating Rule 60(b), the drafters took into account such factors as the desirability of this type of remedy, the need for finality, the preference for deciding cases on the merits, and the desire that justice be accomplished.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

No More Excuses: Refusing to Condone Mere Carelessness or Negligence under the "Excusable Neglect" Standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.