Clarifying Excusable Neglect Under Alaska R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1): Attorney Error Does Not Warrant Relief

Introduction

In Edward H. v. Sarah B., Supreme Court No. S-18832 (Alaska March 19, 2025), the Alaska Supreme Court addressed a post-judgment motion challenging an award of attorney’s fees in a protracted, high-conflict child custody dispute. After the superior court granted the mother’s unopposed motion for a civil no-contact order and awarded her $5,450 in attorney’s fees and costs, the father moved under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(1) (mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect) to set aside that fee award. He contended he never saw the underlying motion because it was served on his attorney, who he and his attorney both—mistakenly—believed had withdrawn. The superior court denied relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying the limits of “excusable neglect” when attorney error or oversight is the sole basis for relief.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s denial of the father’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion. It held:

Service was properly made on the father’s counsel, who had not yet formally withdrawn at the time the motion for a no-contact order was filed.
Under Alaska Civil Rule 5(b), service on counsel of record is effective unless the court orders otherwise. The attorney’s failure to respond or notify the client does not relieve the client from the consequences of that service.
“Excusable neglect” is an “elastic concept” but typically does not extend to an attorney’s inadvertent failure to advance legal claims or oppose motions.
Even under the “extraordinary circumstances” standard of Rule 60(b)(6), relief requires attorney abandonment of the client. Here counsel remained active—he attempted, after entry of the order, to negotiate a waiver of fees—so no abandonment occurred.

Accordingly, the father failed to demonstrate excusable neglect and the superior court did not abuse its wide discretion in refusing to vacate the fee award.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied on three principal lines of authority:

Alaska R. Civ. P. 5(b) — Service upon counsel constitutes proper service on the party they represent, unless the court directs service on the party directly.
Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 60(b)(6) jurisprudence — Cases such as Erica G. v. Taylor Taxi, Inc. (357 P.3d 783) and Chena Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C. v. Bridges (502 P.3d 951) establish that routine attorney mistakes—even if inadvertent—rarely qualify as “excusable neglect,” and that only extreme attorney abandonment might support relief under subsection (6).
Farrell v. Dome Laboratories (650 P.2d 380) — Recognizing that neglect by counsel “typically does not warrant relief” under Rule 60(b)(1).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Proper Service: The no-contact motion and order were served on counsel of record before his motion to withdraw was granted. Under Rule 5(b), counsel remained the father’s “agent,” and client and attorney share responsibility for noticing and opposing motions.
Excusable Neglect Standard: Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” But Alaska courts construe “excusable neglect” narrowly. Absent some compelling excuse—bad faith by opposing counsel, prejudice to the movant, or a short delay—an attorney’s oversight in calendaring or monitoring filings does not qualify.
Rule 60(b)(6) and Attorney Abandonment: The Court noted that relief under subsection (6) is available only in truly extraordinary cases not covered by (b)(1)–(5). Even there, the movant must show the attorney effectively abandoned the client. Here counsel attempted to negotiate away the fee award post-order, confirming continuing representation.

Impact

This decision cements Alaska’s strict approach to Rule 60 relief when attorney error is the sole ground:

Clients cannot sidestep adverse orders simply by alleging they were unaware of motions served on counsel.
Attorneys must promptly seek formal withdrawal and ensure clients receive all court filings.
Courts will hold clients accountable for counsel’s omissions, preserving finality and discouraging post-judgment “second chances.”
Future litigants will find it more difficult to vacate orders based on minor calendaring mistakes or misunderstandings between attorney and client.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Excusable Neglect: A flexible term covering inadvertent mistakes, but not simple attorney slip-ups. To qualify, the mistake must be reasonable and not solely a matter of oversight.

Agency of Counsel: Under civil rules, service on an attorney of record counts as service on the client until counsel is formally relieved by the court.

Rule 60(b)(1) vs. Rule 60(b)(6): Subsection (1) covers inadvertence or mistake; subsection (6) covers “any other reason justifying relief,” but only in extraordinary cases not fitting within (1)–(5).

No-Contact Order: A civil injunction prohibiting communication between parties, here issued in a child custody dispute due to allegations of harassment.

Conclusion

Edward H. v. Sarah B. clarifies that Alaska’s courts will not entertain post-judgment vacatur of fees on the basis of routine attorney mistakes. Proper service on counsel is binding, and only “excusable neglect” beyond mere inadvertence—often involving attorney abandonment—can justify relief under Rule 60(b). By affirming the superior court’s denial, the Alaska Supreme Court reinforces finality in civil proceedings and underscores the importance of diligent representation and timely communication between attorney and client.