AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Respondent's appeal against an order denying his motion to set aside a 2018 judgment. The judgment in question was an order of divestiture of the Respondent's interest as a tenant in common. The Respondent had filed multiple motions to set aside the judgment over the years, with the last two motions being the focus of this appeal (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that he has been the victim of party/judge malfeasance and sought to set aside a 2018 judgment on grounds that had been previously decided in his earlier motions (paras 1, 3-4).
• Petitioners-Appellees: Supported the denial of the Respondent's motion to set aside the 2018 judgment, arguing that the Respondent had not presented any new claims or grounds that had not been previously addressed (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Respondent's Rule 1-060(B) motions to set aside the 2018 judgment (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Respondent's motions to set aside the 2018 judgment (para 5).

Reasons

• Megan P. Duffy, Judge, with Jennifer L. Attrep, Chief Judge, and Jane B. Yohalem, Judge, concurring, found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Respondent's Rule 1-060(B) motions. The Court noted that the Respondent had not alleged any new grounds for relief that had not been decided in his previous motions. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Respondent's arguments in his docketing statement and memorandum in opposition did not raise any new claims or were outside the limitations period set forth in Rule 1-060(B). The Court concluded that the Respondent failed to demonstrate any new, independent ground to set aside the 2018 judgment, thus affirming the district court's decision (paras 2-5).