The Glasberg effect
Preserved Authority Under C.R.C.P. 60(b) (Savings Clause)
What the rule is, and what the record questions are
Fraud upon the court is a narrow doctrine. It generally refers to intentional misconduct directed at the tribunal that compromises the integrity of the adjudicative process. Because the harm is to the court’s truth-finding function, the remedies can be different from ordinary fraud between parties.
1. Authority to set aside a judgment
C.R.C.P. 60(b) preserves the court’s power
Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) includes a “savings clause” in its final paragraph. In plain terms, it states that Rule 60(b) does not limit the court’s power to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.
Important precision: this is an authority-preserving clause. It is not a guarantee that relief will be granted. It also does not eliminate the need for admissible proof.
What courts look for
A successful fraud-upon-the-court claim typically requires evidence of intentional conduct that corrupted the judicial process itself, not just disputed facts or ordinary litigation tactics.
2. Judicial ethics and diligence
Colorado’s Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to perform their duties competently and diligently. That is an ethics framework, not a private cause of action. It matters because it describes the system’s expectations for judicial administration and integrity.
3. Heightened disclosure duties in domestic relations
Colorado domestic relations cases impose affirmative disclosure duties. Parties owe each other and the court full and honest disclosure of material facts. Expert practice in domestic cases is also rule-governed. These rules exist because financial outcomes depend on accurate records. (Add exact rule text only if you can quote it from an official source or your filed documents.)
Time Limits and Why “Fraud Upon the Court” Is Treated Differently
Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides two distinct procedural paths for post-judgment relief: a motion in the original case, and (in rare circumstances) an independent equitable action.
1) Ordinary fraud claims have a strict deadline.
Motions alleging “fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party” under C.R.C.P. 60(b) must be filed within 182 days after entry of judgment (and also within a “reasonable time”).
2) Fraud upon the court is addressed under the Rule 60(b) savings clause.
C.R.C.P. 60(b)’s final paragraph preserves the court’s power to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court and to entertain an independent action. Because the savings clause preserves this authority, courts treat true fraud-upon-the-court claims as outside the 182-day motion deadline.
3) “Not subject to 182 days” does not mean “no timing scrutiny.”
Relief for fraud upon the court is extraordinary. Courts still scrutinize whether the claim truly involves misconduct directed at the tribunal and whether the moving party proceeded diligently once the facts were discoverable. Unreasonable delay can still be raised as an equitable defense.
Practical takeaway: The key question is not simply “Is it late?” The key question is whether the proof shows a corruption of the adjudicative process, supported by admissible evidence, in a way that justifies extraordinary relief.