Whelchel v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc.
Decision Date | 28 February 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 49A04-9308-CV-315,49A04-9308-CV-315 |
Citation | 629 N.E.2d 900 |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Parties | Beverly WHELCHEL, Appellant-Defendant, v. COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF INDIANA, INC., Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Timothy Logan, M. Robert Benson, Benson, Pantello, Morris & James, Fort Wayne, for appellant-defendant.
Phyllis J. Emswiller, Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.
Defendant-Appellant Beverly Whelchel (Whelchel) appeals from the denial of her motion for relief from default judgment. We reverse.
One issue is dispositive of this appeal: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Whelchel's motion for relief from default judgment.
The record reveals that Whelchel was indebted to Plaintiff-Appellee Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc. (Community) for hospital services rendered in the amount of $5,233 plus interest. 1 After making a formal Whelchel did not answer Community's complaint and failed wholly to defend the action. Community filed a motion for default judgment which the trial court granted in February, 1993. Pursuant to the order, default judgment was entered for Community in the amount of $5,721.75.
demand for payment and hearing no response from Whelchel, Community filed suit against her in the Marion County Municipal Court. Whelchel was served with complaint and summons on or about January 27, 1993.
Promptly thereafter counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Whelchel. Filed contemporaneously with the appearance was an affidavit of counsel addressing the misunderstanding of counsel and a motion for relief from default judgment pursuant to Ind.Trial Rule 60(B)(1).
The record reflects that on or about January 27, 1993, Whelchel also received a summons to appear in the Hamilton County Small Claims Court. Whelchel contends that she did not realize that these legal documents related to two separate actions against her. Counsel testifies in his affidavit that his office was contacted to represent Whelchel in an action brought by Community. Whelchel thereafter sent the materials to counsel via facsimile, and based on said materials, counsel was alerted only to the Hamilton County action. Counsel appeared and defended the Hamilton County action. Immediately upon being notified by Whelchel of the default judgment in the Marion County action, counsel entered an appearance in her behalf and filed the motion for relief from default judgment based on his excusable neglect with respect to his belief that only one action was pending against his client.
After hearing oral argument on the motion for relief from judgment, the trial court denied the motion. Whelchel appeals from this denial of relief from judgment.
Our standard of review on the denial of a motion for relief from default judgment is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. LaPalme v. Romero (1993), Ind., 621 N.E.2d 1102, 1104, reh'g denied (citations omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and inferences supporting the judgment for relief. Summit Account & Computer v. Hogge (1993), Ind.App., 608 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (citations omitted). The trial court's decision on a motion for relief from default judgment is given substantial deference on appeal. LaPalme, 621 N.E.2d at 1104. Therefore, absent an unequivocal abuse of discretion, the trial court's judgment will not be lightly disturbed.
The decision of whether to grant or deny a motion for relief from default judgment is within the equitable discretion of the trial court. Graham v. Schreifer (1984), Ind.App., 467 N.E.2d 800, 802. Trial Rule 60(B) provides in pertinent part that
[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from an entry of default, final order, or final judgment, including a judgment by default, for the following reasons: (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect.
T.R. 60(B)(1). (emphasis provided). Whelchel contends that she has met the requirements of T.R. 60(B) in that she has presented evidence of excusable neglect and a meritorious defense. We agree. Whelchel contends that she "simultaneously received a [c]omplaint on [a]ccount and a nondescript [n]otice to [a]ppear, and understandably failed to make a distinction between the pleading and summons." Appellant's Brief at 16.
there [was] ample evidence of a breakdown in communication between Whittaker's insurance carrier and the attorney ultimately hired to defend Whittaker. That breakdown in communication resulted in counsel not being present at trial to represent Whittaker. If the failure of the defendant in Boles to appear and defend the lawsuit is excusable, then under the circumstances the failure of defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kmart Corp. v. Englebright
...court showing that the defaulted party would suffer an injustice if the judgment is allowed to stand. Whelchel v. Community Hosps. of Indiana, Inc., 629 N.E.2d 900, 903 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied. On motion for relief from judgment, the burden is on the movant to demonstrate that reli......
-
Outback Steakhouse of Florida v. Markley
...showing that either liability is in doubt or the damages awarded were excessive or inadequate. See, e.g., Whelchel v. Cmty. Hosps. of Ind., Inc., 629 N.E.2d 900, 903 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), trans. denied; Sanders v. Kerwin, 413 N.E.2d 668, 671 (Ind.Ct.App.1980). A "meritorious defense" is also ......
-
Shane v. Home Depot Usa, Inc.
... ... No. 82A01-0610-CV-465 ... Court of Appeals of Indiana ... July 17, 2007 ... Robin R. Craig, Evansville, IN, ... was sufficient to satisfy meritorious defense requirement); Whelchel v. Community Hosp. of Indiana, Inc., 629 N.E.2d 900, 903 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) ... ...
-
Smith v. Johnston
...relief under Trial Rule 60(B), Smith must also make a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense. Welchel v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., 629 N.E.2d 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994); State DNR v. Van Keppel, 583 N.E.2d 161 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). In the context of this case, Smith must pre......