The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that closed a significant loophole litigants have attempted to exploit for years. In light of Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc v. Burton, ___US___; 223 L Ed 2d 438 (2026), parties will now be required to affirmatively address “void” judgments—which used to be considered legal nullities—within a reasonable time, rather than waiting until they felt like addressing them or ignoring them altogether.
A judgment against a party in litigation can be rendered “void” when it is based on a legal error such as a court’s lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow litigants to move for relief from a judgment on the basis that it is void. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Such a motion must be made within a reasonable time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
In Coney Island, one of the parties (Vista Pro) filed for bankruptcy and initiated an adversary proceeding against another party (Coney Island) to collect unpaid invoices. Vista Pro failed to comply with the service of process rules set forth in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and Coney Island did not answer the complaint. Despite Vista Pro’s failure to properly serve Coney Island, the bankruptcy court entered a default judgment against Coney Island. Vista Pro’s bankruptcy trustee tried and eventually succeeded in enforcing the judgment against Coney Island. More than 6 years after the default judgment was entered, Coney Island moved for relief from judgment on the grounds that the default judgment against it was void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to the improper service of process. Vista Pro challenged the motion, arguing that it was not brought within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court agreed with Vista Pro, resolving a circuit split regarding the time to challenge void judgments.
The Supreme Court in Coney Island noted that it “[could not] divine any principle requiring courts to keep their doors perpetually open to allegations of voidness.” Based on the plain language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the Court stated that “giving a party a ‘reasonable’ time to seek relief from an allegedly void judgment may well be all that due process demands.”
On the other hand, the Court noted “extreme implications” to allowing parties to allege voidness at any time, such as enabling an adversely affected party to wait as long as it wanted before contesting a legal consequence.
As a practical matter, the language of Rule 60 clearly contemplates the fact that judgments can be void based on legal errors and gives litigants an avenue to seek relief from them. It imposes a concrete timeframe within which litigants may exercise their rights from a void judgment. But the word “void” is confusing, because now, a void judgment is not automatically “void”—it requires the litigant against whom the judgment is entered to argue why the judgment is void, or else the judgment can be enforced.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that litigants must act promptly when challenging judgments, even those allegedly entered without jurisdiction. Parties who delay risk forfeiting potentially meritorious arguments.
Wolfson Bolton Kochis PLLC attorneys are experienced federal court litigators who help businesses assess risk, preserve defenses, and develop strategies to protect their interests in high-stakes commercial and bankruptcy litigation.
