138 So. 3d 961
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Davis appeals the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider the grant of summary judgment to Vance.
- This court reviews Rule 60(b) relief, not the underlying merits of the judgment, and only for extraordinary circumstances collateral to the merits.
- Facts: 2006 Mercedes forfeiture due to marijuana; 2007 federal cocaine arrest; 2007 defense by Vance with $5,000 retainer and $8,000 escrow;
- 2008 Vance signed an agreed order to forfeit the Mercedes; state charges against Vance were dropped.
- 2011 Davis sued Vance for legal malpractice; statute of limitations was raised; 2012 summary judgment for Vance; 2012 motion to reconsider; 2012 denial; appeal timely filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of review under Rule 60(b)? | Davis argues for merits-based review on appeal. | Vance contends review is limited to Rule 60(b) relief only. | Review limited to Rule 60(b) scope; merits not reviewed. |
| Were extraordinary circumstances shown? | Davis attached evidence he claims created disputes; argued extraordinary matters. | No extraordinary circumstances were shown. | No extraordinary circumstances; denial proper. |
| Rule 60(b) cannot relitigate merits? | Davis sought relief based on merits disputing statute tolling. | Rule 60(b) requires collateral or extraordinary grounds, not merits. | Rule 60(b) not used to relitigate merits; affirmed. |
| Timeliness interplay with Rule 59 vs Rule 60? | N/A | N/A | Not required for outcome; Davis’s motion fell under Rule 60(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Victory Mktg., LLC, 111 So.3d 1234 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (limited abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 60(b) denial)
- Sims v. State, 102 So.3d 1227 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (Rule 60(b) for extraordinary circumstances; collateral to merits)
- Bruce v. Bruce, 587 So.2d 898 (Miss. 1991) (Rule 60(b) requires extraordinary circumstances; merits not relitigated)