Fraud upon the court also known as fraud on the court in United States Bankruptcy and District Courts is the topic of this blog post. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) states that nothing in Rule 60 limits a court’s power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. The one year limitations period for relief from judgment in Rule 60 does not apply to fraud on the court.
One year limitations period of FRCP 60(b)(3) does not limit court’s power to set aside judgment under “fraud on the court” doctrine. See Outen v Baltimore County 177 FRD 346, 348 (1998, DC Md).
Fraud on the court is distinct from other types of fraud in that it is generally applied only in the most egregious cases. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Toscano v. Comm’r, 441 F.2d 930, 933-34 (9th Cir. 1971) that the term “fraud upon the court” must be construed narrowly in connection with Rule 60.
The existence of fraud on the court depends on the circumstances of the particular case. It is clear, however, that perjury or the fabrication of evidence alone, or fraud that is primarily inter partes, does not constitute fraud on the court absent the encouragement or involvement of the attorneys involved or other court involvement. In fact, any fraudulent or perjured matter which was actually presented and considered by the court in reaching its decision cannot ground such a claim under the doctrine of estoppel.” See Outen v Baltimore County 177 FRD supra at 349. (Citations omitted.) affirmed Outen v. Baltimore County 164 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 1998).
However the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1995) held that a lawyer’s failure to disclose evidence during discovery constituted fraud upon the court.
The United States Supreme Court has also noted the inherent power of courts to vacate judgments on basis of fraud upon the court. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991).
Fraud on the court is extremely difficult to prove as the party alleging fraud on the court must prove it by clear and convincing evidence, and all doubts are resolved in favor of sustaining the prior court action. However if used in the right situations and backed up with competent and substantial evidence it is a very powerful tool with no time limitation.
Attorneys or parties who would like to view a portion of a sample motion to vacate a judgment for fraud on the Court under Rule 60(d)(3) sold by the author can see below.
Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view portions of over 245 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation sold by the author can use the following link: http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.
Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
These materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.