Powderidge Unit Owners Association v. Highland Properties, Ltd

In Powderidge Unit Owners Association v. Highland Properties, Ltd.,196 W. Va. 692, 474 S.E.2d 872 (1996), the Court explained that while Rule 60(b), W. Va.R.C.P is not an invitation for relitigation, it may be used to encourage a court to reconsider a prior determination. Specifically, the Court stated: Although Rule 60(b) does not explicitly allow a party to file a motion for clarification and reconsideration, it is well established that a proper Rule 60(b) motion may urge a court to reconsider or vacate a prior judgment. syl. pt. 3, Lieving v. Hadley, 188 W. Va. 197, 423 S.E.2d 600 (1992); Bego v. Bego, 177 W. Va. 74, 78, 350 S.E.2d 701, 705 (1986); CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Construction Co., 57 F.3d 395, 400-401 (4th Cir.1995) (per curiam); 11 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 2857 at 254-64 (2nd ed. 1995). (196 W. Va. at 704-05, 474 S.E.2d at 884-85.) Justice Cleckley noted that the weight of authority supports the view that Rule 60(b) motions which seek merely to relitigate legal issues heard at the underlying proceeding are without merit. . . . In other words, a Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider is simply not an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled. (Powderidge, 196 W. Va. at 705-06, 474 S.E.2d at 885-86.) Moreover, "it is established also that a Rule 60(b) motion does not present a forum for the consideration of evidence which was available but not offered at the original proceeding." Id., 196 W. Va. at 706, 474 S.E.2d at 886.