In a 2010 decision the Kentucky Supreme Court held that as a matter of comity among Kentucky trial courts, only the court that issued a judgment may enter a CR 62 stay of execution as to the judgment. In Fox Trot Properties, LLC v. Wright, 314 S.W.3d 286 (Ky. 2010), the Court noted that orderly procedure and proper respect for other courts require that a post-judgment motion seeking relief from a judgment be filed with the court that rendered it. The Court also observed it would be unseemly for trial courts in one venue to enter orders affecting valid and enforceable judgments entered by a trial court in another venue. The logic of the Fox Trot holding is unassailable, as the same principle would obviously apply to all the other types of available post-judgment motions, including a motion for JNOV (CR 50.02), a motion to amend a judgment (CR 52.02), a motion to alter, amend, or vacate (CR 59.05), a motion to correct clerical mistakes (CR 60.01), or a motion for relief on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, new evidence, or fraud (CR 60.02).
Note: The foregoing post includes commentary reprinted from the forthcoming 2011 supplement to Rules of Civil Procedure Annotated, 6th ed. (Vols. 6 & 7, Kentucky Practice Series), by David V. Kramer and Todd V. McMurtry, with permission of the authors and publisher. Copyright (c) 2011 Thomson Reuters.
For more information about this publication please visit: http://store.westlaw.com/rules-of-civil-litigation-annotated-6th-vols-6-7-kentucky/130503/11774808/productdetail.
David Kramer is a Northern Kentucky attorney practicing at Dressman Benzinger LaVelle psc.
Subscribe to the DBL Civil Litigation blog.
« Back to newsSubscribe
