When a party files such a motion, North Dakota courts treat it as either a motion to alter or amend a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) or a motion for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), depending on the motion’s content, the grounds asserted, and the timing of filing. The principal post-judgment mechanisms available under North Dakota law are: (1) N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) — motion to alter or amend a judgment (28-day deadline, errors of law); (2) N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b) — motion for new trial (60-day deadline, reexamination of facts); (3) N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(b) — motion to amend or make additional findings of fact in bench trials (28-day deadline); (4) N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a) — correction of clerical mistakes (no time limit); (5) N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) — relief from final judgment on enumerated grounds (1-year limit for grounds (1)–(3); reasonable time for grounds (4)–(6)); (6) N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(b) — renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law in jury trials (28-day deadline); (7) N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) — revision of interlocutory orders before final judgment (no deadline); and (8) an independent action in equity preserved by Rule 60(d) (no fixed time limit, but narrow availability). Each mechanism carries distinct timing requirements, substantive standards, and consequences for appellate deadlines under N.D.R.App.P. 4.
North Dakota Does Not Recognize a Stand-Alone Motion to Reconsider
The North Dakota Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly held that North Dakota law does not formally recognize a stand-alone motion to reconsider. As the court stated in Larson Latham Huettl LLP v. Iversen, 2023 ND 16, 985 N.W.2d 662, North Dakota law does not formally recognize motions to reconsider, but if properly written and argued, a motion to reconsider may be treated as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j), or as a motion for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b). This principle has been reaffirmed in numerous decisions. James Vault & Precast Co. v. B&B Hot Oil Serv., Inc., 2019 ND 143, 927 N.W.2d 452Matter of Est. of Bartelson, 2019 ND 107, 925 N.W.2d 416Zepeda v. Cool, 2021 ND 146, 963 N.W.2d 282Hoffarth v. Hoffarth, 2020 ND 218, 949 N.W.2d 824 The practical consequence is that a party who files a document labeled “motion to reconsider” must ensure it satisfies the requirements of one of the recognized procedural vehicles — including its timing requirements — or risk having the motion treated as untimely or procedurally defective.
N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j): Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment
Purpose and Standard
A motion to alter or amend a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) N.D. R. Civ. P. 59 is the primary vehicle for asking a court to correct errors of law in a final judgment. The North Dakota Supreme Court has explained that a Rule 59(j) motion is not a second opportunity for a trial court to reconsider presented evidence, but rather is a means to correct errors of law. Larson Latham Huettl LLP v. Iversen, 2023 ND 16, 985 N.W.2d 662 The distinguishing characteristic of a Rule 59(j) motion is that, unlike a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(b), it does not usually request a reexamination of issues of fact. Edison v. Edison, 2023 ND 141, 994 N.W.2d 151Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Assocs., Inc., 2013 ND 218, 840 N.W.2d 92 Instead, it may be used to ask the court to reconsider its judgment and correct errors of law. Edison v. Edison, 2023 ND 141, 994 N.W.2d 151 The North Dakota Supreme Court has also recognized that Rule 59(j) provides an appropriate vehicle for a party to draw the court’s attention to its view that through mistake the court has not granted it all the relief to which it is entitled. Kainz v. Jacam Chem. Co. 2013, LLC, 2023 ND 42, 987 N.W.2d 320
Timing
A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be served and filed no later than 28 days after notice of entry of the judgment. N.D. R. Civ. P. 59 This deadline is strictly enforced by North Dakota courts.
Appellate Review
The Supreme Court will not reverse a district court’s decision on a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(j) unless the court abused its discretion. Larson Latham Huettl LLP v. Iversen, 2023 ND 16, 985 N.W.2d 662 A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, when it misapplies or misinterprets the law, or when the decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned decision. Matter of Est. of Bartelson, 2019 ND 107, 925 N.W.2d 416
Appellate Deadline Effect
A timely filed Rule 59(j) motion tolls the full 60-day period for filing a notice of appeal for all parties. The appeal deadline runs from service of notice of the entry of the order disposing of the motion. N.D. R. App. P. 4
N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b): Motion for New Trial
Purpose and Standard
A new trial is defined as a reexamination of an issue of fact in the same court, after a trial and decision by a jury, court, or referee. N.D. R. Civ. P. 59 A motion for new trial is therefore the appropriate vehicle when a party seeks to have the court reexamine factual issues. The grounds for a new trial are enumerated in Rule 59(b) and include: (1) irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, or adverse party, or any court order or abuse of discretion that prevented a party from having a fair trial; (2) jury misconduct, and if a juror has been induced to assent to any general or special verdict or to a finding on any question submitted to the jurors arrived at by chance, the misconduct may be proven by a juror’s declaration; (3) accident or surprise that ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; (4) newly discovered evidence material to the moving party that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at trial; (5) excessive damages appearing to have been awarded under the influence of passion or prejudice, but when a new trial is requested on this ground and it appears that the passion or prejudice affected only the amount of damages awarded and did not influence the jury’s findings on other issues in the case, the district court, on hearing the motion, and the supreme court, on appeal, may order a reduction of the verdict instead of a new trial or order that a new trial be had unless the prevailing party remits the excess damages; (6) insufficient evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or that the verdict is against the law; (7) errors in law occurring at trial and, when required, objected to by the moving party; and (8) inability to obtain a correct and complete transcript through no fault or negligence of that party. N.D. R. Civ. P. 59
An important procedural consequence of filing a Rule 59(b) motion for new trial — as opposed to a Rule 59(j) motion to alter or amend — is that the party making such a motion is limited on appeal to a review of the grounds presented to the trial court. Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Assocs., Inc., 2013 ND 218, 840 N.W.2d 92 This limitation does not apply to Rule 59(j) motions. Edison v. Edison, 2023 ND 141, 994 N.W.2d 151
Timing
A motion for new trial must be served and filed no later than 60 days after notice of entry of judgment on any ground other than newly discovered evidence. N.D. R. Civ. P. 59 On the ground of newly discovered evidence, the motion must be filed within six months after notice of entry of judgment. N.D. R. Civ. P. 59 The court may extend the 60-day deadline for good cause shown. N.D. R. Civ. P. 59
Court’s Own Initiative
No later than 28 days after notice of entry of judgment, the court may, on its own initiative, order a new trial for any reason that would justify granting one on a party’s motion. N.D. R. Civ. P. 59 The court must specify the reasons in its order. N.D. R. Civ. P. 59 With all orders granting or denying a new trial, the court must file a written memorandum concisely stating the different grounds on which the ruling is based. N.D. R. Civ. P. 59
Appellate Deadline Effect
A timely filed Rule 59(b) motion for new trial also tolls the full 60-day appeal period for all parties, running from service of notice of the entry of the order disposing of the motion. N.D. R. App. P. 4
N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(b): Motion to Amend or Make Additional Findings
Purpose and Standard
In actions tried to the court without a jury (bench trials), Rule 52(b) N.D. R. Civ. P. 52 provides a mechanism for a party to ask the court to amend its existing findings of fact, make additional findings of fact, and amend the judgment accordingly. This rule is particularly useful when a party believes the court’s written findings are incomplete or do not accurately reflect the evidence. The court is not bound by its oral statements made from the bench when announcing its decision; it may amend findings in a manner that differs from its oral ruling. Ellendale Farmers Union Co-op. Ass’n v. Davis, 219 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 1974) The court’s decision on a Rule 52(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. MayPort Farmers Co-Op v. St. Hilaire Seed Co., 2012 ND 257, 825 N.W.2d 883
Timing and Interaction with Rule 59
A Rule 52(b) motion must be filed no later than 28 days after notice of entry of judgment. N.D. R. Civ. P. 52 The rule expressly provides that a Rule 52(b) motion may accompany a motion for a new trial under Rule 59, allowing parties to seek multiple forms of post-judgment relief simultaneously. N.D. R. Civ. P. 52
Appellate Deadline Effect
A timely filed Rule 52(b) motion tolls the full 60-day appeal period for all parties, whether or not granting the motion would alter the judgment. N.D. R. App. P. 4 This is a broader tolling provision than that applicable to Rule 60 motions.
N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a): Correction of Clerical Mistakes
Rule 60(a) N.D. R. Civ. P. 60 permits the court to 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 act on motion or on its own initiative, with notice. N.D. R. Civ. P. 60 This provision is appropriate when the movant claims a clerical mistake, oversight, or omission in the judgment or amended judgment. Edison v. Edison, 2023 ND 141, 994 N.W.2d 151 There is no time limit for seeking correction under Rule 60(a). However, after an appeal has been docketed in the Supreme Court and while it is pending, such a correction may be made only with the Supreme Court’s leave. N.D. R. Civ. P. 60
N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b): Relief from a Final Judgment or Order
Overview and Grounds
Rule 60(b) N.D. R. Civ. P. 60 provides six grounds on which a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding:
(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. This ground covers errors by the party or counsel that were not the product of deliberate choice.
(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). This ground is distinct from the newly discovered evidence ground under Rule 59(b) in that it applies to evidence discovered after the Rule 59 deadline has passed. Farmers Elevator Co. of Horace v. Nagel, 307 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 1981)
(3) Fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. The burden is on the moving party to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the adverse party obtained the judgment through fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, and relief should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Gajewski v. Bratcher, 240 N.W.2d 871 (N.D. 1976)
(4) The judgment is void. A void judgment may be attacked at any time within a reasonable period.
(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.
(6) Any other reason that justifies relief. This catch-all provision is an extraordinary remedy that should be invoked only when extraordinary circumstances are present. Hoffarth v. Hoffarth, 2020 ND 218, 949 N.W.2d 824Sanders v. Bott, 2024 ND 209, 14 N.W.3d 86Ayling v. Sens, 2019 ND 114, 926 N.W.2d 147 Rule 60(b)(6) is mutually exclusive from grounds (1) through (5): it is not to be used where those subdivisions may be employed, but it can be used where the grounds for vacating a judgment are within subdivisions (1) through (5) if something more or extraordinary is present. Gajewski v. Bratcher, 240 N.W.2d 871 (N.D. 1976)City of Wahpeton v. Drake-Henne, Inc., 228 N.W.2d 324 (N.D. 1975) The provision attempts to strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be ended and that justice should be done. Sanders v. Bott, 2024 ND 209, 14 N.W.3d 86
Timing
Rule 60(b) motions must be made within a reasonable time. For grounds (1), (2), and (3), the motion must be filed no more than one year after notice of entry of the judgment or order if the opposing party appeared, or no more than one year after entry of adefault judgment. N.D. R. Civ. P. 60 Grounds (4), (5), and (6) have no specific time limit beyond the reasonable time requirement. N.D. R. Civ. P. 60 A Rule 60(b) motion does not affect the finality of the judgment or suspend its operation. N.D. R. Civ. P. 60
Appellate Deadline Effect
A Rule 60(b) motion tolls the 60-day appeal period only if it is served and filed no later than 28 days after notice of entry of judgment. N.D. R. App. P. 4 A Rule 60(b) motion filed after that 28-day window does not toll the appeal deadline, even though it may still be timely under Rule 60(b)’s own one-year or reasonable-time limits. This is a critical distinction: a party who files a Rule 60(b) motion more than 28 days after notice of entry of judgment cannot use that motion to extend the time to appeal the underlying judgment.
Standard of Review
Denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hoffarth v. Hoffarth, 2020 ND 218, 949 N.W.2d 824Hoffarth v. Hoffarth, 2020 ND 218, 949 N.W.2d 824 Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for an appeal. Gajewski v. Bratcher, 240 N.W.2d 871 (N.D. 1976)
N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(b): Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
In jury trials, Rule 50(b) N.D. R. Civ. P. 50 provides a mechanism for a party to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) after the jury returns its verdict. The moving party must have made a Rule 50(a) motion for directed verdict during trial, and may then renew that motion by serving and filing a motion no later than 28 days after notice of entry of judgment. N.D. R. Civ. P. 50 A motion for new trial under Rule 59 may be joined with a timely filed Rule 50(b) motion, but joining the motions does not extend the 28-day deadline for the JMOL motion. Schaan v. Magic City Beverage Co., 2000 ND 71, 609 N.W.2d 82 A timely Rule 50(b) motion also tolls the full 60-day appeal period. N.D. R. App. P. 4
N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b): Revision of Interlocutory Orders and Certification of Partial Final Judgments
Interlocutory Orders Are Freely Revisable
Rule 54(b) N.D. R. Civ. P. 54 provides that any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities. N.D. R. Civ. P. 54 This means that interlocutory orders — including partial summary judgments, orders on individual claims in multi-claim litigation, and similar rulings — are freely revisable by the district court without the need to satisfy the standards of Rule 59 or Rule 60. Slaubaugh v. Slaubaugh, 466 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 1991)Eberle v. Eberle, 2009 ND 107, 766 N.W.2d 477 Interlocutory orders generally are not appealable and may be revised or reconsidered any time before the final order or judgment is entered. Eberle v. Eberle, 2009 ND 107, 766 N.W.2d 477
Certification of Partial Final Judgment
When a court wishes to make an interlocutory order immediately appealable, it may certify it as a final judgment under Rule 54(b) by expressly determining that there is no just reason for delay. N.D. R. Civ. P. 54 The North Dakota Supreme Court is not bound by the district court’s certification determination and will review it for abuse of discretion, and may sua sponte review the certification even if neither party challenges it. Gessner v. City of Minot, 529 N.W.2d 868 (N.D. 1995)Vanover v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 535 N.W.2d 424 (N.D. 1995) Certification is reserved for cases involving unusual circumstances where failure to allow an immediate appeal would create demonstrated prejudice or hardship. Gessner v. City of Minot, 529 N.W.2d 868 (N.D. 1995) In evaluating whether certification is appropriate, courts consider factors including the relationship between adjudicated and unadjudicated claims, the possibility that the need for review might be mooted by future developments, the possibility of having to consider the same issue twice, the presence of counterclaims that could result in setoff, and miscellaneous factors such as delay, economic considerations, and expense. Vanover v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 535 N.W.2d 424 (N.D. 1995)
Independent Action in Equity (Rule 60(d))
Rule 60(d) N.D. R. Civ. P. 60 expressly preserves the court’s power to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding. North Dakota recognizes this independent action in equity as a separate legal claim that is not subject to the one-year limitation applicable to Rule 60(b) motions. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 410 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1987) To prevail on an independent action in equity to obtain relief from judgment, a party must establish five elements: (1) a judgment that ought not, in equity and good conscience, be enforced; (2) a valid defense to the alleged claim upon which the judgment is founded; (3) fraud, accident, or mistake that prevented the party from obtaining the benefit of the defense; (4) absence of fault or negligence by the party seeking relief; and (5) no adequate remedy at law. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 410 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1987) However, the independent action is not available when a party should have sought relief through a procedural motion under Rule 60(b); when Rule 60(b) relief is available, an independent action is not. Hageness v. Hageness, 1998 ND 147, 582 N.W.2d 661 The independent action must be initiated as a separate civil action, not as a motion in the original proceeding. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 410 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1987)
Rule 60(d) also separately preserves the court’s power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. N.D. R. Civ. P. 60 Rule 60(e) abolishes bills of review, bills in the nature of bills of review, and writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, and audita querela. N.D. R. Civ. P. 60
Practical Implications
The choice among these procedural vehicles carries significant strategic consequences. Because North Dakota does not recognize a stand-alone motion to reconsider, a party who files such a motion must ensure it is filed within the applicable deadline for the rule under which it will be treated. A motion labeled “reconsideration” filed more than 28 days but less than 60 days after notice of entry of judgment may be treated as a timely Rule 59(b) motion for new trial, but it will not be treated as a timely Rule 59(j) motion to alter or amend. Similarly, a motion filed more than 28 days after notice of entry of judgment cannot toll the appeal deadline even if it is otherwise timely under Rule 60(b)’s one-year limit.
The distinction between Rule 59(j) and Rule 59(b) also has appellate consequences: a party who moves under Rule 59(b) for a new trial is limited on appeal to the grounds presented in that motion, while a party who moves under Rule 59(j) to alter or amend is not subject to that limitation. Practitioners in bench-trial cases should consider filing both a Rule 52(b) motion and a Rule 59(j) motion simultaneously, as the two motions serve complementary purposes and both toll the appeal deadline.
For interlocutory orders in multi-claim or multi-party litigation, Rule 54(b) provides the most flexible vehicle: absent certification, such orders may be revised at any time before final judgment without satisfying the demanding standards of Rules 59 or 60. This flexibility disappears once a final judgment is entered, at which point the party must resort to Rule 59 or Rule 60.
Related Issues
- Whether a mislabeled or untimely “motion to reconsider” can be treated as a timely Rule 60(b) motion and whether it preserves appellate jurisdiction
- The interaction between post-judgment motions and the running of the 60-day appeal deadline under N.D.R.App.P. 4, including the effect of multiple simultaneous post-judgment motions
- The standard for vacating a default judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 55 and Rule 60(b), including the threshold showing of a meritorious defense
- Post-judgment modification of domestic relations orders (child custody, child support, spousal support) under N.D. Cent. Code §§ 14-09-06.6 and 14-05-24.1, which impose separate and more restrictive standards than the civil rules
Under North Dakota law, while there is no stand-alone motion to reconsider, parties seeking to revisit, amend, or obtain relief from a court order or judgment typically proceed under rules analogous to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (N.D.R.Civ.P.) 52(b), 54(b), 59, and 60. Rule 59 addresses motions to alter or amend a final judgment and must generally be filed within 10 days after entry of judgment under North Dakota rules, mirroring the time-sensitive nature of such motions. Rule 60 provides for relief from a final judgment or order under specific grounds such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other extraordinary reasons, and may be filed outside the strict timelines applicable to Rule 59 motions. Rule 52(b) allows amending or making additional factual findings within 10 days of judgment entry when necessary. For interlocutory orders or partial judgments, Rule 54(b) empowers the court to revise such rulings at any time before final judgment, following a more flexible discretionary standard. Reconsideration motions, although not specifically recognized, are treated as requests for relief under these rules, with courts applying stringent standards requiring manifest error, new evidence, or intervening change in controlling law, and are disfavored as vehicles for mere re-argument or “second bites” at the issue 6 Annotated Patent Digest § 40:53, 1 Annotated Patent Digest § 3:37.
Timing distinctions are critical: Rule 59 motions are generally timely only within the fixed post-judgment window (often 10 days in North Dakota), while Rule 60 motions may be filed later but require more extraordinary grounds. Rule 54(b) lacks the strict timing constraints of Rules 59 and 60, applicable to interlocutory rulings subject to court discretion. Notably, courts will not entertain new arguments or evidence in these motions that could have been presented earlier. This procedural framework fosters finality while allowing limited opportunities to correct manifest errors or address newly discovered facts before or shortly after final judgment 6 Annotated Patent Digest § 40:53, 1 Annotated Patent Digest § 3:37.