William Hines, et al v. Green Tree Servicing, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Kermit E. Bye and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED) [4124750] [13-2534]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2534 ___________________________ William Hines; Kywanda Hines, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC ("Green Tree"); Green Tree Recovery, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: February 4, 2014 Filed: February 19, 2014 ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. William and Kywanda Hines appeal the district court’s1 orders denying their motion for post-judgment relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and (d)(1), and denying their subsequent motion for reconsideration. In their motions, 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 13-2534 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2014 Entry ID: 4124750 they asserted that a prior final judgment was entered without jurisdiction and was wrongly decided, and that their attorney had been incompetent. Upon careful review, we conclude that the motions lacked merit and were properly denied. See Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703 (1982) (individual may submit to personal jurisdiction of court by appearance); Inman v. Am. Home Furniture Placement, Inc., 120 F.3d 117, 119 (8th Cir. 1997) (Rule 60(b) has never been vehicle for relief because of attorney’s incompetence or carelessness); see also Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 620 F.3d 873, 878 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing standard for granting relief under Rule 60(d)); Hunter v. Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004) (Rule 60(b)(4) motion may not be used as substitute for timely appeal of judgment; Rule 60(b)(4) motion to void judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will succeed only if absence of jurisdiction was so glaring as to constitute total want of jurisdiction or plain usurpation of power so as to render judgment void from its inception). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 13-2534 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2014 Entry ID: 4124750

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?