Rule 60(b)(4) – Void Judgments and Fraud on the Court: No Statute of Limitations

In American law, the idea of finality—that a case must eventually end—has always been balanced against something even more fundamental: legitimacy. A judgment obtained without jurisdiction, or through deception, is not merely flawed; it is void from the beginning. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), anyone affected by such a judgment can ask the court to declare it void at any time.

The text of the rule is simple:

“On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding … if the judgment is void.”

That single sentence carries centuries of constitutional weight. It embodies the principle that no court can bind a person over whom it never had lawful authority, and that due process under the Fourteenth Amendment is not optional. If there was no proper service of process, or if the case was built on fraud, the resulting order is a legal nullity—no matter how long it has been on the books.

Void Service and the Absence of Jurisdiction

Every lawsuit begins with notice. Without it, there can be no jurisdiction, and without jurisdiction, there can be no judgment. This concept traces back to Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), where the Supreme Court held that a judgment entered without service was void for want of jurisdiction. The same principle still governs today: if you were never properly served, the court never had authority over you.

In Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, 485 U.S. 80 (1988), the Court reaffirmed that a default judgment entered without valid notice violates due process and must be set aside, even if the defendant cannot show any other defense. Jurisdiction, the Court explained, is not a technicality—it is the very foundation of lawful power.

Modern cases echo that truth. In United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010), the Court held that a judgment inconsistent with due process is void under Rule 60(b)(4). As one appellate court put it, “Because a void judgment is a nullity, the passage of time cannot transform it into a valid one.” (Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 1994).)

Fraud on the Court: When Justice Is Corrupted

Separate from lack of service is fraud on the court—conduct so egregious that it undermines the integrity of the judicial system itself. The Supreme Court made this clear in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), where a patent judgment was vacated years later after it was discovered that the prevailing party had ghostwritten a favorable article and passed it off as independent authority. The Court called such deception “a wrong against the institutions set up to protect the public.”

Because fraud on the court strikes at the very machinery of justice, there is no statute of limitations on bringing it to light. Rule 60(d)(3) explicitly preserves the court’s inherent power to “set aside a judgment for fraud on the court,” without any time restriction. As the Tenth Circuit observed in Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115 (1985), fraud on the court “is not limited by time.”

That principle has been applied repeatedly. In Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993), a decades-old judgment was overturned after evidence showed the government had concealed exculpatory documents. Courts will always retain jurisdiction to correct such wrongs, because public confidence in justice depends on it.

The Rule in State Courts

State courts follow the same doctrine. Massachusetts, for example, recognizes void judgments under Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 60(b)(4). In MacDonald v. MacDonald, 407 Mass. 196 (1990), the Supreme Judicial Court declared that a Probate Court order entered without jurisdiction was void and subject to collateral attack. Likewise, in Worcester v. Eisenbeiser, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 345 (1979), a contempt order based on an invalid underlying judgment was set aside.

New York’s CPLR 5015(a)(4) requires vacating any judgment entered without jurisdiction, and California’s Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d) authorizes courts to “set aside any void judgment or order at any time.” The common thread across jurisdictions is unmistakable: void means void, forever.

Why These Principles Still Matter

In an era of digital dockets and automated enforcement, it is easy for defective or fraudulent paperwork to masquerade as a valid court order. But due process is not a technical obstacle—it is the Constitution’s guarantee that government must play by the rules before taking a citizen’s property, liberty, or reputation.

A judgment entered without service, or obtained through deceit, is not entitled to respect simply because it has aged. Courts are duty-bound to vacate such orders whenever the truth emerges. As Hazel-Atlas reminds us, “The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception.”

Key Takeaway

Rule 60(b)(4) is more than a procedural device—it is a statement that finality never trumps fairness. Whether the case is one year old or fifty, a void judgment remains void, and fraud on the court can be challenged at any time.

No jurisdiction, no judgment. No honesty, no finality.

Cited Authorities:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), 60(d)(3); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878); Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, 485 U.S. 80 (1988); United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010); Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944); Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115 (10th Cir. 1985); MacDonald v. MacDonald, 407 Mass. 196 (1990); People v. American Contractors Indem. Co., 33 Cal. 4th 653 (2004).