John Hoth v. Stacey Hoth, S19249

Stacey Hoth petitioned for a long-term domestic violence protective order against John Hoth, alleging prior violence, threats, and a door-breaking incident. 1
At the June 2023 hearing, both parties testified about the door incident and their relationship history, and John declined the court's offer of a continuance to gather more evidence. 2
The district court granted the long-term DVPO, finding Stacey's testimony credible and concluding John's conduct was at least reckless and caused Stacey reasonable fear of imminent physical injury. 3
John did not appeal within 30 days, but one year later he sought Rule 60(b) relief based on alleged mistake/excusable neglect and newly discovered evidence. 4
The superior court denied Rule 60(b)(1) relief, ruled the police report and later-gathered materials were not newly discovered evidence, and found they would not change the result. 5
The supreme court affirmed, holding the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 60(b)(1): mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect 7	John lacked time and knowledge to prepare evidence.	Stacey argued John knew the door issue and declined a continuance.	No abuse of discretion; no Rule 60(b)(1) relief. 8
Rule 60(b)(2): police report as newly discovered evidence 9	John said the police report could change the result.	Stacey argued the report was cumulative and immaterial.	No relief; report unlikely to change outcome and was cumulative/impeaching. 10
Rule 60(b)(2): affidavit and photographs about the door 11	John said later-obtained evidence proved the door was already damaged.	Stacey argued the evidence was discoverable earlier and cumulative.	No relief; evidence was discoverable and cumulative. 12

Richard v. Boggs, 162 P.3d 629 (Alaska 2007) (Rule 60(b) relief reviewed for abuse of discretion 13)
Red Hook Constr., LLC v. Bishop, 556 P.3d 1188 (Alaska 2024) (decision is manifestly unreasonable standard 14)
Sandberg v. Sandberg, 322 P.3d 879 (Alaska 2014) (Rule 60(b)(1) requires record support for claimed mistake and factual findings are reviewed for clear error 15)
Chena Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C. v. Bridges, 502 P.3d 951 (Alaska 2022) (excusable neglect requires neglect plus a valid excuse causing the failure 16)
Erica G. v. Taylor Taxi, Inc., 357 P.3d 783 (Alaska 2015) (Rule 60(b)(1) appellant must show grounds and manifest unreasonableness 17)
Dickerson v. Williams, 956 P.2d 458 (Alaska 1998) (no neglect where a party makes a deliberate choice; cumulative/new-trial timing principles 18)
Williams v. Williams, 956 P.2d 458 (Alaska 1998) (newly discovered evidence must be likely to change result, discovered after trial, undiscoverable with due diligence, material, and not cumulative or impeaching 19)
Wasserman v. Bartholomew, 923 P.2d 806 (Alaska 1996) (defines cumulative evidence as repeating an established point 20)
State v. Alaska Cont'l Dev. Corp., 630 P.2d 977 (Alaska 1980) (impeachment evidence is ordinarily insufficient for Rule 60(b)(2) relief 21)