¶1 — In February of 1991, Bradley Ward, age 19, stipulated to being a sexually violent predator and was sent to a special commitment center for treatment. In 2003, Ward moved under CR 60(b)(5) and (11) to withdraw his stipulation. He argued a significant change in the law occurred in 1993, which justified relief from judgment. The superior court denied his motion and Ward appealed. A court of competent jurisdiction accepted Ward’s stipulation *376and ordered his commitment, therefore judgment cannot be void under CR 60(b)(5). Further, because Ward did not move to vacate his stipulation within a reasonable time, he is barred from relief under CR 60(b)(ll). We affirm.

*376I

¶2 As a juvenile, Bradley Ward was convicted of indecent liberties. His sentence included 28 weeks at the Maple Lane School for rehabilitation, followed by 24 months of community supervision coupled with the requirement to complete sex offender counseling. Ward eventually moved back into his mother’s house and failed to complete the required treatment. He was sentenced to jail time for not completing the counseling program. While he was in jail, the State petitioned to have Ward committed as a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW.

¶3 Chapter 71.09 RCW is a civil statute that authorizes the State to involuntarily commit an individual to a secure treatment facility when he is found by a court or jury to be a sexually violent predator.1 A sexually violent predator is “any person who has been convicted of or charged with a crime of sexual violence and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility.”2 In February of 1991, Ward stipulated to being a sexually violent predator and was committed to a special commitment center for treatment. In his stipulation, Ward admitted that he had a mental disorder, a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense, and that his acts were predatory. He did not stipulate to committing a recent overt act.

f 4 Two years after his commitment, our Supreme Court decided In re Personal Restraint of Young3 Interpreting *377chapter 71.09 RCW as constitutional, the court held that when a defendant has been released from confinement since his last sex offense, but before sexually violent predator proceedings are initiated against him, the State must prove he committed a recent overt act in order to establish his dangerousness.4 The legislature amended chapter 71.09 RCW in 1995 to reflect the court’s decision.5

¶5 In March of 2003, Ward moved to withdraw his stipulation under CR 60(b)(5) and (11). He argued that the court should vacate judgment because the Young decision constituted a significant change in the law, which justified relief. The superior court denied his motion after concluding that the Young decision was not a change in the law, but rather “a judicial interpretation of a principle that arguably existed from day one.”

¶6 Ward appeals the order denying his motion.

II

f 7 Ward argues that the superior court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his stipulation under either CR 60(b)(5) or (11). First, however, the parties dispute whether Ward can appeal as of right the court’s order denying his motion to vacate judgment.

A. RAP 2.2(a)(10)

¶8 RAP 2.2(a)(10) authorizes defendants to appeal as a matter of right orders stemming from motions to vacate judgment. Ward appealed an order stemming from a motion to vacate his stipulation and commitment order. Citing In re Detention of Turay6 and In re Detention of *378Petersen,7 the State argues that commitment orders are not judgments under RAP 2.2(a)(10). But Turay and Petersen stand for the opposite conclusion. Our Supreme Court held that postcommitment orders are not final judgments under RAP 2.2(a)(1) and (13) because sexually violent predators are subject to the court’s ongoing jurisdiction until they are unconditionally released.8 In other words, postcommitment orders are determinations of whether to maintain the status quo.9 In contrast, a commitment order establishes the status quo and therefore serves as a judgment.

¶9 In substance, Ward argued that there was a significant change in the law that justifies relief from judgment. The motion, on its face and in substance, is a genuine motion to vacate judgment. Thus, it is appealable as a matter of right under RAP 2.2(a)(10).

B. CR 60(b)

¶10 Chapter 71.09 RCW is civil in nature. The civil rules govern sexually violent predator proceedings, “[e]xcept where inconsistent with rules or statutes applicable to special proceedings.”10 Sexually violent predator proceedings are special proceedings; therefore the civil rules apply unless they conflict with provisions within *379chapter 71.09 RCW.11 CR 60(b) authorizes the court to relieve a party from judgment in specified circumstances. Because there are no provisions within the statute that prohibit detainees from moving to vacate judgment, CR 60(b) is available to them.

1. CR 60(b)(5)

f 11 Ward argues that his stipulation is void because the State did not allege a recent overt act. But, even if we were to accept his argument, the error does not render the judgment void. Rather, irregularities, even fundamental errors of law, simply render the judgment voidable.12 A judgment is void only if it is issued by a court which “ ‘lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, or which lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved.’ ”13 Therefore Ward is not entitled to relief from judgment under CR 60(b)(5).

2. CR 60(b)(ll)

¶12 CR 60(b)(ll) is a catchall provision, intended to serve the ends of justice in extreme, unexpected situations. To vacate a judgment under CR 60(b)(ll), the case must involve “extraordinary circumstances,” which constitute irregularities extraneous to the proceeding.14 A defendant can move to vacate judgment under CR 60(b)(ll) only when his circumstances do not permit moving under another subsection of CR 60(b).15

*380¶13 In rare circumstances, a change in the law may create extraordinary circumstances, satisfying CR 60-(b)(ll).16 Assuming Young initiated a change in the law,17 it may constitute extraordinary circumstances. The State’s burden of proof is, beyond question, greater and therefore inconsistent with its pre-Young burden. The change in law goes to the very basis of Ward’s commitment. Proving a recent overt act is a constitutional requirement and, thus, an important element of establishing a person is a sexually violent predator. Further, the equities balance in Ward’s favor. Although a civil statute, the sexually violent predator act authorizes the commitment of individuals. The interest in finality of judgments is easily outweighed by the interest in ensuring that an individual is not arbitrarily deprived of his liberty.18

¶14 But we do not need to decide whether Young was a change in the law that created extraordinary circumstances. CR 60(b)(ll) motions must be made within a “reasonable time.”19 A decade passed between the Young decision and Ward’s motion to vacate judgment. Ten years is an unreasonable amount of time.20 Ward has not stated any good reason for failing to take appropriate action *381sooner.21 Thus, CR 60(b)(ll) cannot be a vehicle for vacating Ward’s stipulation.22

¶15 Affirmed

Ellington, A.C.J., and Becker, J., concur.

Reconsideration denied March 11, 2005.