358 P.3d 562
Alaska2015Background
- Cynthia and David Fernandez married in 1979 and had two children (1983, 1985).
- They obtained a decree of dissolution in 1986 and an accompanying child-support/order, but continued to live together as husband and wife until 1997 (then 2001–2007 as well); the parties concede the 1986 dissolution was filed to shield marital assets from David’s bankruptcy.
- Cynthia contacted Child Support Services Division (CSSD) in 2010 to enforce arrears dating to 1986, totaling about $118,000; David moved for relief from the child-support judgment.
- The superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that the 1986 dissolution was a sham and constituted a fraud on the court, corrupting the judicial process and harming creditors.
- Under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(6) the superior court set aside the 1986 dissolution, reapportioned property and limited child support to the date of the parties’ actual final separation (June 2007), eliminating earlier arrears for periods the parties lived together.
- Cynthia appealed, arguing improper use of Rule 60(b)(6), unreasonable delay, violation of in pari delicto, and that retroactive reduction of child-support arrears is barred by Rule 90.3 and federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Cynthia's Argument | David's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1986 dissolution was a "fraud on the court" justifying Rule 60(b)(6) relief | Court must narrowly construe fraud on the court; the sham did not reach that level | The dissolution was a sham that impaired bankruptcy/creditor processes and thus defiled the court | Affirmed: sham dissolution was fraud on the court (egregious corruption of judicial process) |
| Whether the trial court could grant Rule 60(b)(6) relief though David did not expressly cite that rule | Relief under (6) unavailable unless party explicitly sought it; court could not grant sua sponte | Court may treat requests for relief liberally and remedy fraud on court even if not labeled Rule 60(b)(6) | Affirmed: trial court may grant Rule 60(b)(6) relief when fraud on the court is shown, even if motion did not expressly cite the subsection |
| Whether David’s motion was untimely under Rule 60(b)(6) because of long delay (1986–2010) | 24-year delay made relief unreasonable and barred | Reasonable time is measured from when issue arose (CSSD enforcement in 2010); David acted promptly once notice received | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; courts assess "reasonable time" based on circumstances and prejudice, and Cynthia was not prejudiced by delay |
| Whether in pari delicto bars relief or whether retroactive reduction of child-support arrears was prohibited by Rule 90.3 / federal law | In pari delicto bars relief to a wrongdoer; retroactive reduction of arrears is generally prohibited by Rule 90.3(h)(2) and federal requirements | Doctrine should not block court’s duty to protect court integrity; equitable considerations and Rule 90.3(h)(3)-type policy (cohabitation/consent) justify limiting arrears to separation date | Affirmed: in pari delicto does not preclude remedy where public institutions (bankruptcy/creditor protections) were defiled; court may set child support only from actual separation (2007) given equitable circumstances and absence of prejudice to children |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaska Fur Gallery, Inc. v. First Nat’l Bank Alaska, 345 P.3d 76 (Alaska 2015) (explains fraud on the court doctrine and Rule 60(b))
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1944) (fraud on the court requires deliberate scheme that defiles judicial process and harms public institutions)
- Mallonee v. Grow, 502 P.2d 432 (Alaska 1972) (one-year limit does not apply to fraud-on-the-court relief; broad equitable power to correct such wrongs)
- Juelfs v. Gough, 41 P.3d 593 (Alaska 2002) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires motion by a party but relief can be construed from pleadings)
- O’Link v. O’Link, 632 P.2d 225 (Alaska 1981) (distinguishes ordinary non-disclosure/perjury from fraud on the court involving the integrity of the judicial process)
- Webb v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Div., 120 P.3d 197 (Alaska 2005) (Rule 90.3(h) limits retroactive modification of child support; exceptions based on equitable estoppel/cohabitation)
- Williams v. Williams, 252 P.3d 998 (Alaska 2011) (divorce/property decrees are final judgments subject to Rule 60(b) relief)