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 Suprem e Court | Ca se 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 summons es and complaint were served on the Cresses on November 15, 2018, and on Wilkerson around December 20. Defendant s 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 R ule 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 defau lt 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 ob ligation 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 affir med the trial court under the deferential standard of review

. Because we agree with the dissent, w e grant transfer and affirm the trial court

. See Ind. App ellate R ule 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 abusedIndiana Suprem e Court | Ca se 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 t he standard of review dis positive here. The trial court rejected most o f the personal c ircumstances Defendants cited in t heir motion for

r elief from judgment —including the Cresses’ auto ac cident and Cha pter 13 bankruptcy and Wilker son’s k nee injury and household move

— as insufficient to es tablish ex cusable neglect. But it als o heard evidenc e that Plaintiffs had a lo ng hi story of sending harassing letters and pu rported legal documents to the Cr esses and o ther fam ily members, supporting the conclusion that D efendants w er e sincere in their c onfusio n as t o w hether
t hey needed to respon d to t his complaint

. See Tr. pp . 5, 40, 52, 67- 69. The trial court’s assessments of the parties’ credibility and dem eanor ar e t he type of fact-sensitive judgments that may not be second-guessed under the deferential standard of appellate review and, here, are suffic ient to establish at leas t “slight ev idence” of excusable neglect. Having g rante d transfer, w e remand the matter t o t he trial court fo r further pr oceedings consistent w ith this o pinion.



### Rush, C.J., and D avid, Massa, and Goff, JJ., concur. Slaughter, J., dissents, believing transfer s hould be den ied.

A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T S Scott A. Norrick Anderson, Indiana

A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S Denise F . Hayden Lacy Law Office, LLC Indianapolis, Indiana Daniel J

. Paul Williams Barr ett & W ilkowski Greenwood, Indiana