Bross v. Mobile Home Estates, Inc., 3-483A122
Decision Date | 30 July 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 3-483A122,3-483A122 |
Citation | 466 N.E.2d 467 |
Parties | David BROSS, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. MOBILE HOME ESTATES, INC. (Third Party Defendant Below), Citicorp Homeowners, Inc. (Plaintiff Below), Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David L. Zoss, Valparaiso, for appellant.
G. Anthony Bertig, Law Offices of James V. Tsoutsouris, Valparaiso, for appellees.
Bross filed a complaint in a suit against the manufacturer of his defective mobile home. When Mobile Home Estates, Inc., the manufacturer, failed to answer his complaint, Bross moved for and obtained a default judgment. Later, Mobile Home Estates, Inc. filed a motion setting forth circumstances which it contends justifies relief from the judgment under Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 60(B). The trial court granted the motion. Bross's appeal presents this issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it granted relief from the default judgment without receiving some admissible evidence which would show that Mobile Home Estates, Inc. had a meritorious, valid defense to the claims set forth in Bross's complaint?
We conclude that the trial court did abuse its discretion and reverse.
Mobile Home Estates, Inc. filed affidavits explaining its failure to answer Bross's complaint. Its president was away on business when the complaint was received in the mail. Its office workers did not recognize the importance of the papers received in the mail and took no action regarding them. The day after an answer was due, the president returned to the office and discovered the complaint which he mailed to his counsel in Ohio. His counsel was unable to take immediate action since he was delayed by other litigation and by a search for local counsel in Indiana. Later, nineteen days after an answer was due to Bross's complaint, counsel obtained local counsel and filed a motion for relief from the default judgment.
In an unverified memorandum, several defenses to Bross's complaint were set forth in very vague and general terms. Roy v. Scales (1922), 77 Ind.App. 619, 133 N.E. 924. There was no attempt by Mobile Home Estates, Inc. to file an affidavit setting forth facts which would constitute a prima facie defense. Cantwell v. Cantwell (1957), 237 Ind. 168, 143 N.E.2d 275.
Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 60(D) provides:
Some of the relief that may be appropriate under Rule 59(J) is:
"(3) Alter, amend, modify or correct judgment;
(4) Amend or correct the findings or judgment as provided in Rule 52(B);
(5) In the case of excessive or inadequate damages, grant a new trial, or grant a new trial subject to additur or remittitur;
"(6) Grant any other appropriate relief, or make relief subject to condition;"
Rule 52(B) referred to above provides in part:
A multiplicity of relief is available to a movant who has suffered a default judgment. The catalyst needed to obtain the proper relief is some admissible evidence which may be in the form of an affidavit, testimony of witnesses, or other evidence obtained through...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kmart Corp. v. Englebright
...Bennett, 647 N.E.2d at 35. The movant need not prove absolutely the existence of a meritorious defense. Bross v. Mobile Home Estates, 466 N.E.2d 467, 469 (Ind.Ct.App.1984). However, the movant must show enough admissible evidence to make a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense indica......
-
Whittaker v. Dail
...length of time between the judgment and the request for relief, and the lack of prejudice to the defendant. Bross v. Mobile Home Estates, Inc. (1984), Ind.App., 466 N.E.2d 467; Fulton v. Van Slyke (1983), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 628; Carvey v. Indiana National Bank, (1978) 176 Ind.App. 152, 37......
-
Shotwell v. Cliff Hagan's Ribeye Franchise, Inc., 10A04-8905-CV-183
...resources of the trial court would be wasted in performing a useless ritual.... (Citations omitted). Bross v. Mobile Home Estates, Inc. (1984), Ind.App., 466 N.E.2d 467, 469. The catalyst needed to obtain the proper relief is some admissible evidence which may be in the form of an affidavit......
-
Logansport/Cass Cnty. Airport Auth. v. Kochenower
...acknowledge that the Airport Authority's position appears to be supported by precedent. Most notably, in Bross v. Mobile Home Estates, Inc. , 466 N.E.2d 467, 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984), this Court held that the moving party under Trial Rule 60(B) must present "some admissible evidence" of a m......