DocketNumber: C.A. No. 90-1964
Judges: <underline>GIBNEY, J.</underline>
Filed Date: 11/12/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Defendant, acting pro se, filed an answer to the complaint on July 23, 1990, two months after entry of default judgment. In his answer, defendant asserted that he never received proper service because he was residing in Florida. Defendant also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court entered final judgment on August 16, 1990.
Pursuant to Rule 60, defendant filed a motion to vacate judgment on July 16, 1991. In his affidavit in support of the motion, defendant reasserted his claim of improper service of process. On September 9, 1991, defendant filed the instant motions to submit additional evidence and proceed in forma pauperis. This court denied the motion to vacate judgment on September 19, 1991. However, this court notes that the motions currently before the court, though filed with the clerk on September 9, 1991, did not come to the attention of the court until after its decision to deny the motion to vacate. Accordingly, defendant's motion to submit additional evidence shall be treated as a motion to vacate.
After careful consideration of the additional evidence submitted by defendant, this court is satisfied that the facts of the instant case constitute "unique circumstances" meriting the application of Rule 60. This court further finds that defendant has met the requirements for setting aside default judgment, namely improper service of process.
Accordingly, this court vacates its prior judgment denying defendant's motion to vacate and pursuant to Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. Rule 55 and Rule 60(b)(6) grants defendant's instant motion to vacate the judgment entered on August 16, 1990.
Defendant has also moved for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Courts have the inherent power to remit fees and allow a civil litigant to proceed in forma pauperis. Silvestro v.Almonte,
Defendant has stated that he was living out of his car and that his only means of support is government assistance. This court is satisfied that the facts presented in defendant's affidavit satisfy the burden of proving his indigency. Accordingly, defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Counsel shall prepare an order in conformity with this decision.