(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court’s leave.
Rule 60.Relief from a judgment or order
Group VII: Judgment · Last amended March 1, 2019 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 60 lets a court fix clerical slip-ups in a judgment at any time and, on a motion filed within set time limits, gives it narrow grounds to undo a final judgment for reasons like mistake, fraud, or newly discovered evidence.
Full Text of Rule 60
(b) Grounds for Relief From a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.
(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1),
(2) , and (3) no more than 6 months after the date of the proceeding or the date of service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order, whichever date is later. The time for filing the motion cannot be extended under Rule 6(b). (2) Effect on Finality. The motion does not affect the judgment’s finality or suspend its operation.
(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court’s power to:
(1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding;
(2) upon motion filed within 6 months after written notice of entry of a default judgment is served, set aside the default judgment against a defendant who was not personally served with a summons and complaint and who has not appeared in the action, admitted service, signed a waiver of service, or otherwise waived service; or
(3) set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.
(e) Bills and Writs Abolished. The following are abolished: bills of review, bills in the nature of bills of review, and writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, and audita querela.
Notes
Drafter’s Note, Amendment Effective January 1, 2005: Subdivision (b) is amended to incorporate the 1946 amendment to the federal rule, which added newly discovered evidence as a ground for relief under subdivision (b). The revised rule does not include the provision in the federal rule for relief under subdivision (b) based on “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Subdivision (b) is also amended by deleting the reference to fraud that “would have theretofore justified a court in sustaining a collateral attack upon the judgment” — language that does not appear in the current federal rule. Subdivision (b) is further amended by adding language, consistent with the federal rule, that abolishes “[w]rits of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review.” Finally, subdivision (b) retains the 6-month limit on motions based on the first three grounds stated in the revised rule rather than the 1-year limit provided by the federal rule. But the provision is revised so that the 6-month limit starts to run from service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. Subdivisions (c) and (d), which do not appear in the federal rule, are retained. The revisions to subdivision (c) are technical with the exception that the 6-month limit now starts to run from service of notice of entry of the judgment rather than the “the date of rendition” of the judgment under the former rule.
Advisory Committee Note — 2019 Amendment: The amendments generally conform Rule 60 to FRCP 60, including incorporating FRCP 60(b)(6) as Rule 60(b)(6). The Rule 60(c) time limit for filing a Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) motion, however, remains at 6 months consistent with the former Nevada rule. Rule 60(d)(2) preserves the first sentence of former NRCP 60(c) respecting default judgments. The amendments eliminate the remaining portion of former NRCP 60(c) and former NRCP 60(d) as superfluous.
Amendment History
Amended eff. 1-1-05; Amended eff. 3-1-19.
Plain-English Summary
A final judgment is supposed to stay final. Rule 60 carves out two different exceptions to that principle. The first, in subdivision (a), is housekeeping: if a judgment or order contains a clerical mistake, or a mistake that crept in through oversight or omission, the court can correct it on its own or on a party's motion, at any point, with or without a hearing. The only wrinkle is that once an appeal is docketed, the trial court needs the appellate court's permission before touching the record. The second exception, in subdivision (b), is far more consequential: it lets a party ask the court to relieve it from an entire judgment, order, or proceeding on one of six listed grounds.
Those six grounds run from the personal to the systemic. A party can point to its own mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; to evidence that surfaced too late to have supported a new-trial motion despite reasonable diligence; to fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the other side; to a judgment that is void outright; to a judgment already satisfied or built on a since-reversed ruling, or one that equity no longer supports going forward; or, as a catchall, to any other reason that justifies relief. Timing matters. A motion resting on the first three grounds must be filed within a reasonable time and never more than six months after the proceeding or after written notice of entry of the judgment, whichever comes later, and that six-month window cannot be stretched by a motion for more time. Filing the motion does not pause the judgment or keep it from being enforced.
Rule 60 also preserves relief the rule itself doesn't spell out. A court can still entertain an independent lawsuit attacking a judgment, can set aside a default judgment entered against someone who was never properly served or notified, and can undo a judgment procured by fraud on the court, all without the six-month clock. And to close the door on old common-law workarounds, subdivision (e) abolishes bills of review and the ancient writs once used to attack judgments outside the ordinary process. None of this rule is a substitute for an appeal; it exists for the narrower situations where the usual appellate timeline isn't the right fit.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between Rule 60(a) and a Rule 60(b) motion?
Rule 60(a) is for fixing mistakes in how a judgment was written down or entered — a wrong date, a miscalculated sum, a clerk's typo. It doesn't change what the court decided. A Rule 60(b) motion is different: it asks the court to undo the substance of its decision because of something like mistake, fraud, or a judgment that turned out to be void. Courts watch this line closely, because parties sometimes try to dress up a substantive challenge as a mere clerical fix to dodge the time limits.
How long do I have to file a motion for relief from judgment?
It depends on the ground. If the motion rests on mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud by the opposing party, it must be filed within a reasonable time and, in any event, no later than six months after the proceeding or after written notice of entry of the judgment, whichever is later — and that six-month deadline cannot be extended. Motions based on a void judgment, a satisfied or reversed judgment, or the catchall "any other reason" ground must still be filed within a reasonable time, but they aren't bound by the six-month cap.
What counts as excusable neglect under Rule 60?
There's no fixed checklist, but courts generally look at why the mistake happened, whether it was within the moving party's control, how much the delay prejudiced the other side, and whether the party acted in good faith once it discovered the problem. A missed deadline caused by a genuine mix-up or a breakdown outside a party's control tends to fare better than one caused by simple inattention to a case.
Can I use Rule 60 instead of appealing?
Not as a general rule. Rule 60 is meant for a narrow set of circumstances — clerical errors, fraud, void judgments, and the like — not for relitigating whether the court got the merits right. If the real complaint is that the court misapplied the law or weighed the evidence incorrectly, an appeal is the proper route, and Rule 60 won't revive a chance to appeal that has already lapsed.
What happens if a default judgment was entered against someone who was never served?
Rule 60(d) addresses this directly. A defendant who was never personally served, never appeared, never admitted or waived service, and never signed a waiver can move to set aside a default judgment within six months after being given written notice that it was entered. This protection sits outside the six-month clock that applies to the (b)(1)-(3) grounds, because the underlying problem — lack of notice — is more fundamental than an ordinary mistake.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Advisory Committee
Notes, and amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Supreme Court of Nevada. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: 60(b) motionrelief from judgmentmotion to set aside judgmentexcusable neglectnewly discovered evidencevoid judgment motion