M.M. v. T-M.M

1 Citing case

  1. M.D. v. R.W.

    194 A.3d 374 (D.C. 2018)   Cited 1 times
    Explaining that although we ordinarily review the denial of a Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion, our review is de novo when the trial court considers a legal argument

    We review the denial of a Rule 60 (b) motion (including an Associate Judge's order upholding the denial of a Rule 60 (b)(6) motion) for abuse of discretion. See Onyeneho v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 80 A.3d 641, 644 (D.C. 2013) ; M.M. v. T–M.M. , 995 A.2d 164, 166 (D.C. 2010). Although ordinarily review of denial of a Rule 59 (e) motion is for abuse of discretion, Associated Estates LLC. v. BankAtlantic , 164 A.3d 932, 936 (D.C. 2017), "our review is de novo when the [trial] court considers and rejects a legal argument." Zuza v. Office of the High Representative , 857 F.3d 935, 938 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 2017).