Examples of such fraud include "bribery of a judge," and "the employment of counsel in order to bring an improper influence on the court." Schefke, 96 Hawaii at 431, 32 P.3d at 75 (citations omitted); cf. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, 98 Hawaii 499, 504, 51 P.3d 366, 371 (2002) (holding that an allegation that "counsel had lied during the underlying proceedings in order to induce [a party] to agree to the judgment of paternity" was properly considered as fraud under HFCR Rule 60(b)(3)). Here, the record does not establish that George knew the Dominican Decree was invalid, or that he deliberately misrepresented his marital status to the family court.

The Gonzalezes' argument below — that new information had come to light — falls within the purview of HRCP Rule 60(b)(2). Cf. Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) v. Doe, 98 Haw. 499, 504, 51 P.3d 366, 371 (2002) (motion based on "`newly discovered evidence'. . . . unequivocally sought relief pursuant to [Hawaii Family Court Rules (HFCR)] Rule 60(b)(2)"). Their augmented argument — that the Cambras and their attorney perpetrated a fraud on the court by not disclosing that information — falls squarely within the ambit of HRCP Rule 60(b)(3).

Whether a motion under HRCP Rule 60(b) is timely "implicates the jurisdiction" of the circuit court. See Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, 98 Hawai‘i 499, 503, 51 P.3d 366, 370 (2002). "[T]he existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo under the right/wrong standard."

"The timeliness of a motion brought pursuant to HFCR Rule 60(b) implicates the jurisdiction of the family court." Child Support Enf't Agency v. Doe, 98 Hawai‘i 499, 503, 51 P.3d 366, 370 (2002). "The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo under the right/wrong standard."

The Court is without jurisdiction to consider a motion based upon Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3), Hawaii Family Court Rules, if the motion is made more than one year after the entry of the order being challenged. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, 98 Haw. 499, 51 P.3d 366[](2002).12.

“A motion to set aside a judgment pursuant to HFCR Rule 60(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Child Support Enf't Agency v. Doe, 98 Hawai‘i 499, 503, 51 P.3d 366, 370 (2002) (citing Hayashi v. Hayashi, 4 Haw.App. 286, 290, 666 P.2d 171, 174 (1983) ).First, it is unclear from the record whether and to what degree the Family Court failed to consider the evidence adduced at trial prior to denying Father's HFCR Rule 60(b) motion.

“Where, as with HFCR Rule 60(b), an HFCR is patterned after an equivalent rule within the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], interpretations of the rule by the federal courts are deemed to be persuasive by Hawai‘i appellate courts.” Child Support Enf't Agency v. Doe, 98 Hawai‘i 499, 503 n. 7, 51 P.3d 366, 370 n. 7 (2002) (citing Hayashi v. Hayashi, 4 Haw.App. 286, 290 n. 6, 666 P.2d 171, 174 n. 6 (1983) ). The Family Court determined that the Motion to Amend was brought within one year of the Divorce Decree and the court had jurisdiction under HFCR Rule 60.

With respect to HFCR Rule 60(b)(6), it is similar to HRCP Rule 60(b)(6) and thus the movant is required to “assert [ ] some ground for relief other than those specifically stated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, 98 Hawai‘i 499, 504, 51 P.3d 366, 371 (2002) (citation omitted). Further, the rule “provides for extraordinary relief and is only invoked upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.”

According to HFCR Rule 60(b), her fraud and undue influence claims were untimely, and the family court did not abuse its discretion by failing to provide Geraldine relief or a hearing regarding them. See Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, 98 Hawai'i 499, 503, 51 P.3d 366, 370 (2002) ("The timeliness of a motion brought pursuant to HFCR Rule 60(b) implicates the jurisdiction of the family court"). COL 31 is not wrong.