Dockter v. Dockter, 918 N.W.2d 35

Brothers Brandon and Shane Dockter co-owned a farming partnership and were co-trustees of an irrevocable trust holding family farmland.
Shane suffered serious mental-health and substance-abuse problems in 2017 and had multiple hospitalizations and criminal proceedings.
Brandon sued (Feb 24, 2017) to dissolve the partnership and trust, alleging Shane’s incapacity and inability to participate; Shane was served but did not answer.
Brandon moved for and obtained a default judgment (June 22, 2017) removing Shane as partner and co-trustee and awarding no buyout, based on Brandon’s affidavit asserting his contributions exceeded Shane’s interest.
Shane received notice of the default judgment in June, then moved Nov 7, 2017 under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate, arguing the judgment was void (violated Rule 54(c)) and, alternatively, should be set aside for excusable neglect; he submitted an affidavit and a psychologist’s report.
The district court denied the motion; the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the judgment was not void under Rule 60(b)(4) and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brandon)	Defendant's Argument (Shane)	Held
Whether the default judgment is void under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4)	Judgment is valid; court had jurisdiction and proper procedure	Judgment is void because it grants relief different from prayers for relief (violates Rule 54(c))	Not void: Rule 60(b)(4) limited to lack of subject-matter or personal jurisdiction (court had jurisdiction)
Whether judgment should be vacated for excusable neglect under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)	Opposes vacatur; reliance and prejudice from third-party reliance on judgment	Shane’s mental illness and hospitalizations prevented timely response and constitute excusable neglect	Denied: district court’s discretion was not abused—long delay, opportunity to defend, lack of demonstrated meritorious defense, prejudice to Brandon
Whether the default judgment complied with Rule 55 proof requirements	Court had sufficient evidence via affidavit to determine relief	Insufficient proof; judgment awarded relief beyond pleadings and proof	Court’s potential Rule 55 irregularity does not render judgment void; failure under Rule 55 is not relief under Rule 60(b)(4)
Whether Shane demonstrated a meritorious defense sufficient to warrant vacatur	Brandon showed contributions exceeded Shane’s interest; dissociation and statutory bars to distribution	Shane asserts buyout should have occurred per partnership agreement	Court found Shane failed to plead/furnish enough facts to show a meritorious defense

Bickler v. Happy House Movers, L.L.P., 2018 ND 177, 915 N.W.2d 690 (standard for reviewing denial of motion to vacate default judgment)
Key Energy Servs., LLC v. Ewing Constr. Co., Inc., 2018 ND 121, 911 N.W.2d 319 (Rule 60(b) principles; excusable neglect standard)
State v. $33,000.00 U.S. Currency, 2008 ND 96, 748 N.W.2d 420 (abuse-of-discretion review framework)
Gepner v. Fujicolor Processing, Inc., 2001 ND 207, 637 N.W.2d 681 (trial court discretion in Rule 60(b) context)
Monster Heavy Haulers, LLC v. Goliath Energy Servs., LLC, 2016 ND 176, 883 N.W.2d 917 (scope of "void" judgment under Rule 60(b)(4))
Alliance Pipeline L.P. v. Smith, 2013 ND 117, 833 N.W.2d 464 (limitations on void-judgment relief)
Johnson, Johnson, Stokes, Sandberg & Kragness, Ltd. v. Birnbaum, 555 N.W.2d 583 (court lacks subject-matter or personal jurisdiction for a judgment to be void)
Wilson v. Wilson, 364 N.W.2d 113 (default judgment irregularities do not automatically render a judgment void)
Perdue v. Sherman, 246 N.W.2d 491 (same)