Setting aside a Massachusetts judgment: Rule 60(b), one year, and the earlier exits

Massachusetts follows the federal model closely here. What differs is what sits in front of it — the Rule 55(b)(2) notice requirement is broader than the federal one, and it often matters more than Rule 60 does.

The six grounds

Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b): on motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or their legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for:

1. mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
2. newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
3. fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
4. the judgment is void;
5. the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or
6. any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

Identical in substance and in numbering to FRCP 60(b) — which makes Massachusetts one of the safer states to reason about from federal habit, unlike Washington or Arizona.

One year for the first three

The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken.

Both limits apply to grounds (1) through (3): reasonable time and the one-year ceiling. Grounds (4), (5) and (6) carry only the reasonable-time requirement.

Ground (4) — a void judgment — therefore has no fixed outer limit, which is the route where service was never validly made.

Filing does not stay the judgment

A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.

Same as the federal rule and every other system we cover. A stay is a separate request.

What the rule replaced, and what it preserves

The subdivision closes with an unusually explicit clean-up:

This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of review, of error, of audita querela, and petitions to vacate judgment are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.

Note that Massachusetts abolishes "petitions to vacate judgment" by name. If you encounter that phrase in older Massachusetts material, the modern vehicle is a Rule 60(b) motion or an independent action.

Fraud on the court sits outside the one-year limit — as it does federally under FRCP 60(d)(3).

The earlier exits are the ones to check first

Rule 55(c): "For good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b)."

Good cause before judgment is a materially easier showing than any Rule 60(b) ground. So the first question in any Massachusetts default problem is whether a judgment has actually entered, or only an entry of default.

Rule 55(b)(2) — the notice requirement. This is where Massachusetts is broader than the federal rule:

The court shall not conduct a hearing unless the party entitled to a judgment by default has provided notice to all other parties, including the party against whom a judgment by default is sought, of the date, time, and location of the hearing. Such notice must include a statement setting forth the nature and type of all damages requested and the amount of any damages that are [ascertainable].

Two departures from FRCP 55(b)(2). The notice runs to all other parties — not only to a party who has appeared, which is the federal trigger. And it must describe the damages sought, which no other default-notice provision in the systems we cover requires.

A default judgment entered after a hearing held without that notice was not entered as the rule permits — which is a Rule 60(b) argument, and often a Rule 60(b)(4) one.

Correcting rather than vacating

Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(a) covers clerical mistakes: those arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on motion of any party, with notice if the court orders it. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter with leave of the appellate court.

Rule 60(a) makes the record say what the court did. It is not a route to change what the court decided.

How Massachusetts compares

A short checklist

1. Establish what was entered — an entry of default, or a judgment. Rule 55(c)'s good cause is far easier than Rule 60(b).
2. Check the Rule 55(b)(2) notice. It had to go to all parties and had to state the damages sought.
3. Calendar one year from entry for grounds (1)–(3), and remember reasonable time applies regardless.
4. If service was never valid, ground (4) carries no fixed deadline.
5. Ask for a stay separately — the motion doesn't suspend the judgment.
6. Don't file a "petition to vacate" — Rule 60(b) abolishes it by name.

Where these rules live

• Mass. R. Civ. P. 4 — Process
• Mass. R. Civ. P. 6 — Time
• Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 — Defenses and Objections
• Mass. R. Civ. P. 55 — Default
• Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 — Relief from Judgment or Order

The Massachusetts courts publish self-help material at mass.gov/courts. This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice, and what counts as excusable neglect is decided under case law this site doesn't cover.