CIVIL PROCEDURE
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Brendan Genaw
In Red Hook Constr., LLC v. Bishop, 556 P.3d 1188 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that a court’s incorrect assumptions regarding contractual damage calculations may serve as the basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1); however, motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) must be “made within a reasonable time” and courts cannot grant untimely motions filed after the one-year limitation period. (Id. at 1192). The Bishops paid a $15,000 credit card payment to Red Hook Construction for a construction project. A dispute ensued and the parties sued each other for breach of contract. (Id. at 1190). The superior court awarded the Bishops expectation damages for contractual breach but did not factor the $15,000 credit card payment into these damages because the court assumed the credit card charge would be disputed following the court’s order. (Id. at 1190–91). Nevertheless, the credit card company processed the disputed payment, and Red Hook received the $15,000. (Id. at 1191). The Bishops filed a motion for relief from judgment under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b). (Id. at 1193–94). The supreme court affirmed the lower court in finding the ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) to be “quite broad” and encompassing of an error made by a court, such as the lower court’s incorrect assumptions regarding expectational damages. (Id. at 1193). However, Rule 60(b)(1) has a one-year limitation period, and the Bishops filed their Rule 60(b)(1) motion outside this timeframe. (Id. at 1193–94). The supreme court therefore reversed the lower court’s decision to grant relief and established this one-year limitation to be a strict, “outer limit” that cannot be stretched. (Id.).
