Curtis v. Universal Acceptance Corp.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Curtis v. Universal Acceptance Corp.

222 A.2d 705, 1966 D.C. App. LEXIS 223

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided September 20, 1966·No. No. 3930·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Nearly six months after judgment by default had been entered against appellant for the balance due under a promissory note, he moved to vacate the judgment. His motion was denied and he has appealed.

The grounds set forth in appellant’s two affidavits could constitute a showing that his default was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, but nothing more. The trial court’s Rule 60(b) “requires that a motion on these grounds be filed not more than three months after judgment.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Nearly six months after judgment by default had been entered against appellant for the balance due under a promissory note, he moved to vacate the judgment. His motion was denied and he has appealed.

The grounds set forth in appellant’s two affidavits could constitute a showing that his default was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, but nothing more. The trial court’s Rule 60(b) “requires that a motion on these grounds be filed not more than three months after judgment.

Affirmed.

Curtis v. Universal Acceptance Corp., 222 A.2d 705, 1966 D.C. App. LEXIS 223 (D.C. 1966).

Pincite

222 A.2d 705 (Curtis v. Universal Acceptance Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.