John J. Hall
Bankruptcy & Insolvency Practice Group Leader
Client Alert
Supreme Court Imposes a Time Limit to Challenge a Judgment – Even If the Judgment Was Void From Its Inception
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.
