First, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion filed on December 20, 2025, is timely under
the rule as it is not more than one year after the judgment issued by this Court on January 2,
2025. Second, the Plaintiffs claim of trial judge error of law is a mistake within the meaning of
federal civil procedure allowing relief from final judgment on grounds of mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect, even if the error is not an obvious legal mistake. Kemp v. United
States, 596 U.S. 528, 534, 142 S.Ct. 1856, 213 L.Ed.2d 90 (2022); see also Neathawk v.
Langlois, 2024 WL 166966, at *3 (Vt. Jan. 12, 2024) (unpub. mem.) (citing Kemp for
proposition that "under equivalent federal rule ... "Rule 60(b)(1) covers all mistakes of law made
by ajudge'"). As the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure are based on the Federal Rules, the
Court finds that an allegation of judicial error of law falls within the ambit of Rule 60(b)(1), see
Reporter's Note, V.R.C.P. 60 ("This rule is substantially identical to Federal Rule 60."), though
should not be intended as a substitute to a timely appeal, Bigelow v. Bigelow, 168 Vt. 618, 721
A.2d 98 (1998). See also Adamson v. Dodge, 174 Vt. 311,327,816A.2d455 (2002) ("Interests
of finality require that relief from a previous judgment should be granted only in extraordinary
circumstances."). The rule "does not protect a party from tactical decisions which in retrospect
may seem ill advised,” Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Okemo Trailside Condominiums, Inc., 139 Vt.
433, 436, 431 A.2d 457 (1981) (citation omitted), and it is not an otherwise “open invitation to
reconsider matters concluded at trial,” John A. Russell Corp. v. Bohlig, 170 Vt. 12, 24, 739 A.2d
1212 (1999) (quotation omitted). The Court is, therefore, implored to adhere to the principles of
“certainty and finality of judgments so that litigation can reach an end.” Richwagen v.
Richwagen, 153 Vt. 1, 4, 568 A.2d 419 (1989).