Rocio Esmeralda Mercado Soto Linch v. Ronald B. Linch
2015 WY 141
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Ronald Linch filed for divorce in Natrona County in 1997, alleging both spouses were Natrona residents and attaching a prenuptial agreement; Rocio Linch was personally served in December 1997 but did not respond.
- Clerk entered default in June 1998; a default divorce judgment was entered March 24, 1999 granting divorce and declaring each spouse retain separate property per the prenup.
- The parties continued living together until October 2011; Rocio filed a W.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) motion in April 2014 to vacate the 1999 default judgment as void.
- Rocio alleged improper service (lack of personal jurisdiction), lack of subject-matter jurisdiction/venue (statute-based residency not alleged), failure to make statutory findings (grounds for divorce, property disposition), and procedural defects (different presiding judge, dormancy/lack of prosecution).
- The district court denied the motion as untimely; Wyoming Supreme Court held the district court erred to the extent it denied relief solely for untimeliness but affirmed because none of the alleged defects rendered the judgment void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) time limits apply to 60(b)(4) (void-judgment) motions | 60(b)(4) is not subject to the reasonable-time/one-year limits; a void judgment may be attacked any time | District court: Rule 60 requires motion within a reasonable time; delay bars relief | Court: Time limits generally do not apply to 60(b)(4); district court erred to the extent it denied solely for delay, but other grounds fail so motion denied on merits |
| Whether failure to allege statutorily required residency in complaint deprived court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Failure to allege 60-day residency means no jurisdiction | Defendant: Plaintiff (Ron) satisfied statutory residency; court had jurisdiction despite pleading defect | Court: Jurisdiction depends on actual authority over the class of cases, not pleading form; Ron’s residency satisfied jurisdiction |
| Whether wrong venue (filed in Natrona vs. Johnson County) deprived court of jurisdiction | Venue misstatement rendered judgment void for lack of jurisdiction | Defendant: Venue is distinct from subject-matter jurisdiction; district courts are courts of general jurisdiction | Court: Improper venue does not negate subject-matter jurisdiction; judgment not void on venue grounds |
| Whether failure to take evidence/make statutory findings or have correct judge rendered judgment void | Entry of default without findings or evidence on irreconcilable differences and property division voids judgment | Defendant: These are errors in exercise of jurisdiction (abuse of discretion), not jurisdictional defects | Court: Errors concern judicial exercise (possible abuse of discretion), not a plain usurpation of power; not void under 60(b)(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Teton Builders v. Jacobsen Constr. Co., 100 P.3d 1260 (Wyo. 2004) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) motions and void-judgment analysis)
- Jubie v. Dahlke (In re Estate of Dahlke), 319 P.3d 116 (Wyo. 2014) (distinguishing jurisdictional defects from errors in exercise of jurisdiction)
- Exotex Corp. v. Rinehart, 3 P.3d 826 (Wyo. 2000) (Rule 60(b) authority cited for void-judgment principles)
- State ex rel. TRL by Avery v. RLP, 772 P.2d 1054 (Wyo. 1989) (void judgment may be attacked at any time when invalidity appears on record)
- Brown v. City of Casper, 248 P.3d 1136 (Wyo. 2011) (jurisdiction depends on whether case belongs to general class over which court has authority)
- Spitzer v. Spitzer, 777 P.2d 587 (Wyo. 1989) (limits on entering default judgment in divorce when damages or relief are not liquidated)
- United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (U.S. 2010) (relief under Rule 60(b)(4) reserved for exceptional cases lacking even an arguable basis for jurisdiction)