 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Craven v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.9/9/2004
985)(commenting on identical provision under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); see also Gordon v. Gordon, 800 P.2d 1018, 1020-21 (Idaho 1990) (relief requested pursuant to rule not warranted where no change of circumstances shown).
Here, both the Arkansas Court of Appeals and the trial court in Colorado considered and rejected Craven's arguments. Both courts identified potential legal avenues for Craven to pursue, either in Arkansas or Colorado, to seek compensation from the driver of the other car or her insurer. Craven argues that these avenues would most likely be fruitless. However, those avenues have not been pursued. And even if Craven is ultimately unsuccessful, relief from the Arkansas judgment would not necessarily be required in the future under C.R.C.P. 60(b). In any event, Craven has not identified any changed circumstances, as required under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(4). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Craven relief from the Arkansas judgment on equitable grounds. Order affirmed.
JUDGE ROY AND JUDGE VOGT concur.
|