Clarence Thomas Questions Attorney on Void Judgments and Timeliness

The Nature of Void Judgments

• ⚖️ Judgments entered without personal jurisdiction are historically considered utterly void and lack legal effect.
• 📌 Such judgments have routinely been vacated without a specific time limit, as it's considered an abuse of discretion not to vacate a void judgment.

Rule 60(c)(1) and Void Judgments

• ⏳ The lower courts ruled that the motion to vacate was untimely under Rule 60(c)(1), which requires motions to be made within a reasonable time.
• 💡 The argument is presented that Rule 60(c)(1) cannot logically apply to judgments that are void ab initio (void from the beginning).
• 🚀 A judgment that is void from the outset cannot become valid or enforceable simply through the passage of time.

Harmonizing Void Judgments and Timeliness

• 🏛️ To reconcile the doctrine of void judgments with reasonable time limits, a defendant may ignore a void judgment and collaterally attack it during enforcement.
• ⚠️ Enforcement must be adversarial or involve an actual invasion of personal interest, not merely actions like mailing post-judgment discovery.

Distinguishing Void and Voidable Judgments

• ❓ A key distinction is made between judgments that are void ab initio (lacking legal effect from the start) and voidable judgments (where the court had jurisdiction but the judgment should be held void for other reasons).
• ✅ For voidable judgments, there might be a reasonable time limitation, but for void judgments, the argument is that timeliness is not a factor.