will not be disturbed unless appellant demon-

strates that the trial court abused it and was clearly wrong. Claassen v. Nord, 756 P.2d 189, 1988 Wyo. LEXIS 91 (Wyo. 1988). When reversal of order denying relief proper. — A reversal of an order denying relief under subdivision (b) will be ordered only if the trial court clearly was wrong. Gifford v. Casper Neon Sign Co., 639 P.2d 1385, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 298 (Wyo. 1982). Court may consider motion during pending appeal. — If the appellant chooses to pursue a subdivision (b) motion, it should be filed in the district court, and the district court has jurisdiction to consider it, and if it indicates that it is inclined to grant it, application then can be made to the appellate court for a re- mand. Doctors’ Co. v. Insurance Corp. of Am., 837 P.2d 685, 1992 Wyo. LEXIS 131 (Wyo. 1992). During the pendency of an appeal, the dis- trict court may consider a motion for relief under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and if it indicates that it is inclined to grant it, application then can be made to the appellate court for a re- mand. Schmalz v. Schmalz, 2018 WY 90, 423 P.3d 325, 2018 Wyo. LEXIS 94 (Wyo. 2018). Default judgment nonreviewable where no grounds nor good cause. — A default judgment was nonreviewable where the defen- dant filed a motion to vacate entry of default and an answer at the same time, but the motion did not justify relief for any of the grounds found in subdivision (b) and did not otherwise manifest good cause in accordance with Rule 55(c), nor did the answer articulate a meritori- ous defense other than by conclusory allega- tions which were not in any manner verified. Adel v. Parkhurst, 681 P.2d 886, 1984 Wyo. LEXIS 288 (Wyo. 1984). Motion to reconsider a nullity. — Moth- er’s appeal of trial court’s denial of her “motion to reconsider” a child support abatement order was dismissed because the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure did not recognize a “motion for reconsider”; therefore the trial court order pur- portedly denying the motion was void and the court lacked jurisdiction under W.R.A.P. 1.04(a) and 1.05. The filing by aggrieved parties of a motion that is properly designated under the rule authorizing the motion, such as W.R.C.P. 50, 52, 59, or 60 will ensure full appellate rights are preserved. Plymale v. Donnelly, 2006 WY 3,