Franklyn v. Elliott

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Franklyn v. Elliott

188 A.2d 345, 1963 D.C. App. LEXIS 196

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1963

DocketNo. 3080

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.2d 345 (Franklyn v. Elliott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franklyn v. Elliott, 188 A.2d 345, 1963 D.C. App. LEXIS 196 (D.C. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOD, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion under Rule 60(b) to vacate a default judgment. The question here is whether the trial' court correctly ruled that the motion was not timely filed.

Judgment after default was ordered on ex parte proof on December 14, 1961, and entry to that effect was made on the trial jacket. Thereafter appellees’ counsel learned that the judgment had not been entered on the docket because the Soldiers and Sailors Relief affidavit filed in support thereof was incomplete. It appeared that oath to the affidavit had been made on December 14, 1961, before the trial court’s clerk but the clerk had inadvertently failed to complete it. On this showing the trial court on January 30, 1962, ordered entry on the docket of the filing of the affidavit nunc pro tunc as of December 14, 1961.

On March 28, 1962, appellant moved under Rule 60(b) to vacate the default, alleging excusable neglect. If December 14, 1961, be considered the date the judgment was entered, the motion was untimely filed because of the three months’ limitation of the rule. On the other hand, if January-30, 1962, be considered the date of the entry of the judgment the motion was timely.

We hold that December 14, 1961, was the effective date of the judgment with respect to any action taken under Rule 60(b). On that date, after default and after ex parte proof, the trial court ordered judgment. Failure to file the Soldiers and Sailors Relief affidavit did not prejudice appellant as he makes no claim that he was then a member of the armed services. Whether lack of the affidavit would prevent execution on the judgment we need not decide, but when the court ordered judgment against appellant and entry to that effect was made on the trial jacket, the time for appellant to take action under Rule 60(b) began to run, and the three months’ limitation expired before the filing of his motion. See Miller v. Werner, D.GMun.App., 185 A.2d 723.

Affirmed.

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

HOOD, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion under Rule 60(b) to vacate a default judgment. The question here is whether the trial' court correctly ruled that the motion was not timely filed.

Judgment after default was ordered on ex parte proof on December 14, 1961, and entry to that effect was made on the trial jacket. Thereafter appellees’ counsel learned that the judgment had not been entered on the docket because the Soldiers and Sailors Relief affidavit filed in support thereof was incomplete. It appeared that oath to the affidavit had been made on December 14, 1961, before the trial court’s clerk but the clerk had inadvertently failed to complete it. On this showing the trial court on January 30, 1962, ordered entry on the docket of the filing of the affidavit nunc pro tunc as of December 14, 1961.

On March 28, 1962, appellant moved under Rule 60(b) to vacate the default, alleging excusable neglect. If December 14, 1961, be considered the date the judgment was entered, the motion was untimely filed because of the three months’ limitation of the rule. On the other hand, if January-30, 1962, be considered the date of the entry of the judgment the motion was timely.

We hold that December 14, 1961, was the effective date of the judgment with respect to any action taken under Rule 60(b). On that date, after default and after ex parte proof, the trial court ordered judgment. Failure to file the Soldiers and Sailors Relief affidavit did not prejudice appellant as he makes no claim that he was then a member of the armed services. Whether lack of the affidavit would prevent execution on the judgment we need not decide, but when the court ordered judgment against appellant and entry to that effect was made on the trial jacket, the time for appellant to take action under Rule 60(b) began to run, and the three months’ limitation expired before the filing of his motion. See Miller v. Werner, D.GMun.App., 185 A.2d 723.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.2d 345, 1963 D.C. App. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklyn-v-elliott-dc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack