I N T H E

Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 20S-PL-573

Dawn Riddle and Matthew Riddle,

Appellants-Plaintiffs,

–v–

Dennis Cress, Haley Wilkerson, and Helen Cress,

Appellees-Defendants. 

Decided: October 2, 2020

Appeal from the Johnson Superior Court, No. 41D04-1810-PL-133

The Honorable Marla Clark, Judge

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals,

No. 19A-PL-1471

Per Curiam Opinion

Chief Justice Rush and Justice David, Justice Massa, and Justice Goff concur.

Justice Slaughter dissents, believing transfer should be denied.
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-PL-573 | October 2, 2020 Page 2 of 3

Per curiam.

Dawn and Matthew Riddle (“Plaintiffs”) sued Dennis and Helen Cress 

and the Cresses’ granddaughter Haley Wilkerson (“Defendants”), alleging 

that certain statements Defendants made to DCS constituted defamation 

and false reporting. The summonses and complaint were served on the 

Cresses on November 15, 2018, and on Wilkerson around December 20. 

Defendants did not enter appearances or respond to the complaint, and in 

January 2019, the trial court granted default judgment to Plaintiffs. 

The next month, counsel entered an appearance for Defendants and 

moved for relief from the default judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(1), 

arguing that various personal complications Defendants experienced 

during the fall and winter of 2018 prevented them from responding to the 

complaint. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting 

Defendants relief from the default judgment and finding “[w]hile 

Plaintiffs debunked most of the specific reasons Defendants set forth, the 

Court was nonetheless left with the impression that Defendants, 

unsophisticated and unrepresented by counsel, were sincerely confused 

about their obligation to respond.” Appellants’ App. Vol. 2, p. 13. 

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, with 

the majority concluding the trial court abused its discretion by setting 

aside the default judgment. Riddle v. Cress, No. 19A-PL-1471, 2020 WL 

1949289 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), vacated. The dissenting judge would have 

affirmed the trial court under the deferential standard of review. Because 

we agree with the dissent, we grant transfer and affirm the trial court. See 

Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). 

Once entered, a default judgment may be set aside because of mistake, 

surprise, or excusable neglect so long as the motion to set aside the default 

is timely and the moving party also alleges a meritorious claim or defense. 

See Ind. Trial Rules 55(C), 60(B)(1). On appeal, a trial court’s decision to set 

aside a default judgment is entitled to deference and is reviewed for an

abuse of discretion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 747 N.E.2d 545, 547 (Ind. 

2001). Any doubt of the propriety of a default judgment should be 

resolved in favor of the defaulted party. Wamsley v. Tree City Village, 108 

N.E.3d 334, 335 (Ind. 2018). A trial court will not be found to have abused 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-PL-573 | October 2, 2020 Page 3 of 3

its discretion “so long as there exists even slight evidence of excusable 

neglect.” Coslett v. Weddle Bros. Contr. Co., 798 N.E.2d 859, 860-61 (Ind. 

2003). 

We find the standard of review dispositive here. The trial court rejected 

most of the personal circumstances Defendants cited in their motion for 

relief from judgment—including the Cresses’ auto accident and Chapter 

13 bankruptcy and Wilkerson’s knee injury and household move—as 

insufficient to establish excusable neglect. But it also heard evidence that 

Plaintiffs had a long history of sending harassing letters and purported 

legal documents to the Cresses and other family members, supporting the 

conclusion that Defendants were sincere in their confusion as to whether 

they needed to respond to this complaint. See Tr. pp. 5, 40, 52, 67-69. The 

trial court’s assessments of the parties’ credibility and demeanor are the 

type of fact-sensitive judgments that may not be second-guessed under 

the deferential standard of appellate review and, here, are sufficient to 

establish at least “slight evidence” of excusable neglect. 

Having granted transfer, we remand the matter to the trial court for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, and Goff, JJ., concur. 

Slaughter, J., dissents, believing transfer should be denied. 

A TTOR N EY FOR A PP E LLA N T S 

Scott A. Norrick 

Anderson, Indiana 

A TTOR N EYS FOR AP P EL LE E S 

Denise F. Hayden 

Lacy Law Office, LLC 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

Daniel J. Paul 

Williams Barrett & Wilkowski 

Greenwood, Indiana