United States v. Melot, 712 F. App'x 719

Billy and Katherine Melot owe over $20 million in federal taxes; Billy is serving a 14-year sentence for tax evasion.
The government foreclosed on and sold the Melots’ property and equipment (2014) for $1.125 million, applying proceeds toward the tax debt; prior appeals challenged those sales and judgments.
In 2016 the Melots moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and (6) to set aside the government’s money judgment as inequitable; they argued IRS billing errors and inability to pay made enforcement unjust.
The magistrate judge recommended denying relief; the district court adopted that recommendation and denied the 60(b) motion.
The Melots appealed, sought IFP status; the Tenth Circuit granted IFP but reviewed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Melot's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(5) authorizes relief from the money judgment because enforcement is no longer equitable	The money judgment has prospective effect (it accrues interest), so 60(b)(5) relief applies	Money judgments are not "prospective" or executory; 60(b)(5) applies only to orders with prospective supervision	Denied — money judgments lack the requisite prospective application; 60(b)(5) unavailable
Whether Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief based on alleged IRS billing errors and inability to pay	IRS’s internal records are inaccurate (sale proceeds not applied; higher assessed amount persists), and inability to ever pay is extraordinary	The government showed proceeds were applied and acknowledged it cannot collect more than the court-ordered judgment; inaccurate bills caused no present harm; inability to pay is not extraordinary	Denied — 60(b)(6) relief requires extraordinary circumstances; none shown

Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2016) (Rule 60(b) relief reserved for exceptional circumstances)
Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA, 231 F.3d 694 (10th Cir. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing denial of 60(b) relief)
Dowell ex rel. Dowell v. Bd. of Educ., 8 F.3d 1501 (10th Cir. 1993) (Rule 60(b)(5) limited to judgments with prospective application)
Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (explaining "executory" or supervisory relief as prospective)
Swift & Co. v. United States, 286 U.S. 106 (1932) (discussing nature of orders with future-directed supervision)
Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co. v. Pennsylvania, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421 (1856) (historic discussion of injunctive/prospective relief)
Stokors S.A. v. Morrison, 147 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 1998) (money judgments generally lack prospective application under 60(b)(5))
Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572 (10th Cir. 1996) (60(b)(6) applies only in extraordinary circumstances)