Background
In 2024, Kenneth and Kathy Downard sued Maynard Builders, Inc., and its principals, including Lois Maynard, over a failed residential construction project. The Downards moved for a partial judgment on the pleadings on several claims. The trial court granted the motion, and an order was entered in August 2024 holding Maynard Builders and the individual defendants, including Lois Maynard, jointly and severally liable for unjust enrichment.
Months later, in March 2025, after the Downards placed a judgment lien on her property, Lois Maynard’s attorney, Robin Bennett, moved to have the lien released. She initially argued there was no judgment against Lois, but later filed a motion under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02(a) to set aside the judgment. Bennett claimed that due to her leaving her law firm around the time the judgment was entered, she never received the proposed order at her old email address and was unaware it included Lois.
The trial court granted the CR 60.02 motion, agreeing that there had been a “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.” The court found that Bennett’s failure to receive and challenge the order, while neglectful, was excusable given the circumstances and the potential prejudice to Lois. The Downards appealed this decision, arguing that attorney negligence is not a ground for CR 60.02 relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that relief from a judgment under CR 60.02(a) is not available for attorney negligence, as established Kentucky precedent dictates that an attorney’s negligence is imputed to their client.
The court rejected the trial court’s attempt to characterize the attorney’s conduct as “excusable neglect” rather than “negligence.” It emphasized that attorneys have a clear duty under court rules to maintain up-to-date contact information in the e-filing system and to exercise diligence in monitoring their cases. The court found that the attorney’s failure to review the tendered order before it became final constituted negligence, not an excusable mistake. The court noted that a court speaks through its written orders, and unofficial clerk notes or an attorney’s mistaken belief about a ruling do not override the final written judgment.
Furthermore, the court dismissed arguments raised on appeal that Lois was never properly served or represented by Bennett in the first place. It determined that such defenses were waived because they were not raised in a timely manner. The court concluded that Bennett had held herself out as Lois’s representative throughout the proceedings, thereby binding Lois to her actions.
Key Takeaways
- An attorney’s negligence is imputed to their client and does not provide a basis for setting aside a final judgment under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(a) for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.”
- Attorneys have a non-delegable responsibility to keep their contact information current in the court’s e-filing system and to diligently monitor cases, including reviewing proposed orders submitted by opposing counsel.
- Defenses related to personal jurisdiction, such as insufficient service of process, are waived if not raised in a timely motion or responsive pleading.
Why It Matters
This opinion reinforces the legal principle of finality in judgments and clarifies the high bar for obtaining extraordinary relief from a court order. It serves as a stark warning to clients that they are generally bound by the actions and omissions of their chosen legal counsel. A mistake by an attorney, even one with significant financial consequences for the client, will not typically be enough to undo a final judgment.
The case also highlights the critical professional duties of attorneys in the modern era of electronic court filing. It underscores that the onus is squarely on legal practitioners to manage their electronic profiles and communications. The court’s decision makes clear that blaming systemic difficulties or personal oversights in managing e-filing notifications is unlikely to be viewed as “excusable neglect,” holding attorneys to a strict standard of diligence in representing their clients’ interests.