The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that there is a time limit—specifically, a “reasonable time” under Rule 60(c)(1)—for filing motions to set aside judgments as “void” under Rule 60(b)(4), even where the alleged voidness stems from lack of proper service or personal jurisdiction. In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, the Court held that Rule 60’s reasonable-time requirement applies to motions attacking judgments for voidness and affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s decision upholding denial of relief because the motion was not made within a reasonable time. This opinion carries immediate consequences for defendants tempted to ignore judgments they believe were entered without proper service or jurisdiction: do not sit on your rights!

Case Background

The chapter 7 trustee for the Vista-Pro Automotive bankruptcy estate sought to collect approximately $50,000 from Coney Island Auto Parts, attempted service by mail allegedly not compliant with Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b)(3), and obtained a default judgment in 2015. The trustee’s enforcement efforts continued for years, including an April 2016 demand letter that lower courts said provided notice; in 2021, a bank account was garnished, prompting Coney Island’s Rule 60 motion to vacate for lack of proper service. The bankruptcy court, district court, and Sixth Circuit denied relief as untimely under Rule 60(c)(1), and the Supreme Court affirmed.

What the Court Held

The Court read the plain text and structure of Rule 60 to require that all Rule 60(b) motions—voidness included—be filed within a reasonable time under Rule 60(c)(1), rejecting the notion that “void” judgments can be attacked at any time. The Court emphasized that when Rule 60 intends to modify timing, it does so expressly (e.g., the one-year limit for certain grounds), and there is no similar carveout for Rule 60(b)(4) motions. The Court also explained that while many errors (including jurisdictional ones) can render judgments vulnerable, legal systems regularly impose time limits, and there is no due process principle guaranteeing an unlimited window for voidness challenges. Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment, agreeing on the textual reading but objecting to the majority’s foray into hypothetical due process issues not raised by the parties.

Why It Matters

This decision resolves a longstanding conflict among the circuits and aligns voidness challenges with the procedural discipline of Rule 60. By foreclosing an open-ended attack window, the Court reinforces finality while preserving flexibility through the “reasonable time” standard, which can account for scenarios where a defendant first learns of a default only upon enforcement. The Court also underscored that prior dicta suggesting a defendant can “ignore” proceedings and later collaterally challenge jurisdiction does not eliminate compliance with procedural timing rules.

Practical Implications for Defendants

  • Move promptly once you learn of the judgment or enforcement activity. A motion under Rule 60(b)(4) must be filed within a reasonable time, which may, in the default context, begin when the defendant first receives notice of enforcement efforts, not necessarily from entry of judgment.
  • Document when and how you first learned of the judgment. Whether a filing is timely will be fact-bound; evidence of first notice (e.g., demand letters or levies) will be critical to the “reasonable time” analysis.
  • Do not rely on “void means timeless.” The Court rejected the idea that voidness claims evade Rule 60’s deadlines; failing to act risks forfeiting relief even for serious service or jurisdiction defects.
  • Expect courts to weigh equities within the “reasonable time” rubric. The standard allows consideration of diligence, prejudice, and notice, balancing fairness with finality in post-default settings.

Bottom line: If you believe a judgment is void for lack of service or jurisdiction, don’t ignore it. Once you learn about it—especially upon enforcement—act within a reasonable time or risk losing the ability to vacate the judgment and assert defenses.