Meier v. Meier, 2014 ND 127

David and Gayla Meier divorced in January 2005 after 27 years of marriage; settlement left railroad Tier II benefits unaddressed.
Attorneys discussed railroad benefits during negotiations; a November 2004 letter questioned inclusion of Gayla’s share via QDRO.
Gayla’s attorney later received Railroad Retirement Board documents explaining need for a QDRO; Gayla did not read them before judgment.
April 2013: Gayla moved under Rule 60(b)(6) to correct the judgment, asserting Tier II benefits were not properly addressed.
District court granted relief, amended the judgment to require a QDRO transferring Tier II funds; Meier appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Gayla's Rule 60(b)(6) motion timely	Meier asserts timely filing within reasonable time after discovery	Meier contends motion was not filed within a reasonable time	Not timely; motion denied as within unreasonable time
Whether Tier II benefits were a marital asset not properly addressed	Meier contends benefits should have been addressed in settlement/judgment	Meier argues benefits were not divisible in divorce	Court presumed not timely to address; issue not decisive for timeliness ruling

Kukla v. Kukla, 838 N.W.2d 434 (2013 ND 192) (Rule 60(b)(6) timeliness; reasonable time analysis)
Bellefeuille v. Bellefeuille, 636 N.W.2d 195 (2001 ND 192) (need to know the law; reasonableness of time for motions)
Avco Financial Servs. v. Schroeder, 318 N.W.2d 910 (N.D. 1982) (reasonable time varies by case; discretion standard)
Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Invts., 663 N.W.2d 204 (2003 ND 100) (catch-all Rule 60(b)(6) standard)
Rebel v. Rebel, 837 N.W.2d 351 (2013 ND 164) (discretion and rational process in 60(b) rulings)
Silbernagel v. Silbernagel, 800 N.W.2d 320 (2011 ND 140) (abuse of discretion standard in 60(b) appeals)