Member
Client Alert
John J. Hall, Jacqueline K. Graves
share this page:
On January 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton, No. 24-808, resolving a split in the federal circuit courts of appeal regarding the amount of time a defendant has under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to challenge a judgment that was void when entered. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, most federal circuits had allowed litigants to vacate an invalid judgment regardless of the length of time that had passed since the judgment became final. The Supreme Court, however, adopted the minority position on the issue and ruled unanimously that a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction must be brought within a “reasonable time.” In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, any party to a judgment believed to be invalid should take action to challenge it at the earliest possible opportunity, especially once that party has notice or knowledge of the judgment.
In Coney Island Auto Parts, a chapter 11 bankruptcy debtor had sought to recover approximately $50,000 in unpaid invoices through an adversary proceeding (a lawsuit within a bankruptcy case). The defendant failed to answer the adversary complaint, and the bankruptcy court entered a default judgment. After the case converted to chapter 7, the bankruptcy trustee attempted to collect the judgment and eventually attached the defendant’s bank account five years after the judgment was entered. A year after that, the defendant moved under Bankruptcy Rule 9024 and Federal Rule 60(b)(4) to set aside the default judgment, arguing it was void because the debtor had never properly served the summons and complaint. The bankruptcy court denied the defendant’s motion, finding that the delay in challenging the judgment was unreasonable. The Sixth Circuit eventually affirmed.
The question presented to the Supreme Court was whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), which requires that motions to vacate final judgments made under Rule 60(b) “must be made within a reasonable time,” applies to motions to vacate void judgments made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). Leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision, the majority of circuit courts of appeal had held that the “reasonable time” limitation of Rule 60(c)(1) did not apply to motions alleging voidness, reasoning that void judgments are legal nullities and that the passage of time cannot convert such nullities into enforceable judgments.
After reviewing Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(c), the Supreme Court held that because a motion for relief from an allegedly void judgment is a motion under Rule 60(b), the reasonable time limit applies. The Supreme Court reasoned that “[t]he operative language clearly requires parties to make [vacatur] motions within a reasonable time,” and noted that the majority circuit court argument for no time limit “cannot bear the weight that [the defendant] and others have placed on it.” The Supreme Court further explained that a defendant “would need to show that some principle of law, such as the Due Process Clause, gives a party the right to allege voidness at any time,” noting that “statutes and rules routinely limit the time during which a party can seek relief from a judgment infected by error.” The defendant in Coney Island Auto Parts did not raise any due process argument, but, even if it had done so, the Supreme Court explained that it could not envision “any principle requiring courts to keep their doors open to allegations of voidness.” Indeed, the Supreme Court observed, “[i]t is hard to accept the proposition that due process requires” no time limit. Because the defendant did not raise the issue, the Supreme Court did not attempt to define what constitutes a “reasonable time” under Rule 60(c)(1).
The Supreme Court’s ruling is notable for many reasons, but most significantly because it changes the practice that had prevailed in most of the country on challenging judgments. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision, parties to judgments believed to be void should be mindful of the “reasonable time” requirement of Rule 60(c)(1) and should move promptly to challenge such judgments.

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly.