Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-653 | September 20, 2018 Page 1 of 8

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Justin Norwood Morgan 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of Name Change 

of Minor Child 

Justin Morgan,

Appellant,

v.

Meghan Price,

Appellee. 

September 20, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-MI-653

Appeal from the Hendricks 

Superior Court 

The Honorable Robert W. Freese, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

32D01-1505-MI-181 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-653 | September 20, 2018 Page 2 of 8

[1] Justin Morgan (“Father”), pro se, appeals the denial of his motion to set aside 

judgment and motion to correct error. We affirm. 

Procedural History

[2] On June 23, 2011, Father and Meghan Price (“Mother”) had a child, and the 

child was named Brayson Norwood Morgan at the time of his birth. On May 

18, 2015, Mother filed a petition for name change of minor requesting that the 

child’s name be changed to Brayson Emerson Price. In November 2015, the 

court held a hearing and took the case under advisement. On April 13, 2016, 

the court held a hearing and entered an order granting Mother’s petition and 

ordering the child’s name changed to Brayson Emerson Price. On November 

23, 2016, Brayson died, and as a result, on June 23, 2017, Mother was charged 

with conspiracy to commit the murder of Brayson and neglect of a dependent 

resulting in death as level 1 felonies and neglect of a dependent resulting in 

bodily injury as a class C felony.

1

 

[3] On October 5, 2017, Father filed a “Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant 

to TR 60(B)(8)” which cited subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), and (8) of Rule 60(B). 

Appellant’s Appendix Volume 2 at 11. Father argued in part that Mother 

knowingly misled the court in her testimony at the April 13, 2016 hearing. 

Father attached exhibits to his motion which included the transcript of the April 

13, 2016 hearing and a news article dated July 21, 2017, related to Mother’s 

 

1

In June 2018, Mother was convicted in connection with Brayson’s death, and the court sentenced her to 

thirty-six years. Mother’s criminal appeal is pending. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-653 | September 20, 2018 Page 3 of 8

criminal charges. The April 13, 2016 hearing transcript reveals that the court 

asked Mother the last time Father had seen Brayson, and she replied “[i]t was 

the third weekend to [sic] December.” Id. at 20. When the court asked the last 

time Father paid support, Mother replied that he paid about $300 the previous 

month and “I feel the paying of child support recently is to look good for the 

name change. Because he hasn’t paid the actual support that was court 

ordered.” Id. She indicated that in 2016 Father paid $18.78 in January, $77 in 

February, $386 in March, and $275 in April. She testified that “[e]very time we 

have a court case, that’s when the child support starts coming in. But it’s never 

consistent.” Id. at 21. The court asked Mother if she requested the name 

change “to avoid any type of civil or criminal or any other type of [action],” 

and she replied “[n]o.” Id. 

[4] Father’s Rule 60(B) motion argued that Father sought to show that, “as 

contemplated by the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure 60(B)(1), (2), and (3), 

there is ample reason to set aside the judgment and Order issued on April 13, 

2016 . . . on the basis of (respectively), excusable neglect or mistake; newly 

discovered evidence; and fraud or misrepresentation to the court,” “[b]ut as the 

Court is well aware, the trial rules specify that a motion under those subsections 

must be filed within one year, and more than one year has passed.” Id. at 14. 

“[Father] would urge the Court to . . . grant him such relief from the judgment . 

. . pursuant to TR 60(B)(8).” Id. 

[5] On January 8, 2018, the court held a hearing at which Father testified that he 

resides in New Mexico, and that, after Brayson passed away, he obtained 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-653 | September 20, 2018 Page 4 of 8

various medical records of Brayson. Father indicated he had previously made a 

report to the Department of Child Services (“DCS”), and when asked to 

describe the circumstances, he answered “[i]t was right after . . . Brayson’s 

femur got broke is when I learned that . . . there was a DCS report made in July 

. . . .” Transcript Volume 2 at 50. When asked “what year,” Father replied 

“2014, I learned about Steven abusing Brayson and then . . . Brayson was left in 

the care with Steven when his femur broke” and that Steven was Mother’s 

boyfriend. Id. Father testified that, after Mother was arrested, he learned of the 

cause of Brayson’s death, and that there were a total of nine DCS reports. 

[6] On January 9, 2018, the court issued an order providing: 

1. On April 13, 2016, the Court entered an Order on Verified 

Petition for Change of Name of Minor. 

2. Mother was the Petitioner in the original action and 

appeared without attorney at the hearing on April 13, 2016. 

3. Father did not appear as Father was out of State. 

4. Child died on November 23, 2016. 

5. Mother has been charged criminally with the death of the 

child. 

6. Father knew of the name change of the child no later than on 

or shortly after the death of the child. 

7. Father had at least 4 months prior to one year after the entry 

of the Judgment on April 13, 2016 within which to file his 

Trial Rule 60 motion. 

8. None of these reasons for Father’s Petition were discovered 

after April 13, 2016. 

9. On October 5, 2017, Father filed his Motion for Relief from 

Judgment. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-653 | September 20, 2018 Page 5 of 8

10. Hearing was held on January 8, 2018. 

11. Father’s Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED. 

Appellant’s Appendix Volume 2 at 9. Father filed a motion to correct error, 

and the court denied his motion. 

Discussion

[7] Father, pro se, maintains the trial court erred in denying his motion for relief 

from judgment “when there was newly discovered evidence found” regarding 

Mother trying to evade DCS and Mother’s crimes against Brayson. Appellant’s 

Brief at 16. Father argues “[i]n reality, as could readily be gleaned from the 

very title of his motion, [he] was filing his motion for relief pursuant to TR

60(B)(8), which did not contain a one-year time limit,” he “was basing this 

motion . . . on newly discovered information,” and he “alleged in his motion 

that [Mother] had committed fraud on the court.” Id. at 18-19. 

[8] Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as trained counsel. Evans v. State, 

809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. We review a denial of 

a motion to correct error and a motion for relief from judgment for abuse of 

discretion. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Holmes, 885 N.E.2d 1265, 1270 (Ind. 

2008), reh’g denied. Mother has not filed an appellee’s brief; thus, we may 

reverse if Father establishes prima facie error. See Graziani v. D & R Const., 39 

N.E.3d 688, 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

[9] Trial Rule 60(B) provides in part: 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-653 | September 20, 2018 Page 6 of 8

On motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a 

party or his legal representative from a judgment, including a 

judgment by default, for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) any ground for a motion to correct error, including 

without limitation newly discovered evidence, which 

by due diligence could not have been discovered in 

time to move for a motion to correct errors under Rule 

59;

(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or 

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of 

an adverse party;

* * * * *

(8) any reason justifying relief from the operation of the 

judgment, other than those reasons set forth in subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4).

The motion shall be filed within a reasonable time for reasons (5), 

(6), (7), and (8), and not more than one year after the judgment, 

order or proceeding was entered or taken for reasons (1), (2), (3), 

and (4). A movant filing a motion for reasons (1), (2), (3), (4), and 

(8) must allege a meritorious claim or defense. . . . 

[10] Under Trial Rule 60(B), the burden is on the movant to establish grounds for 

relief. Ind. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 734 N.E.2d 276, 279 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2000), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Rule 60(B) is meant to afford relief from 

circumstances which could not have been discovered during the period a 

motion to correct error could have been filed; it is not meant to be used as a 

substitute for a direct appeal or to revive an expired attempt to appeal. Id. The 

“residual powers under subsection (8) may only be invoked upon a showing of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-653 | September 20, 2018 Page 7 of 8

exceptional circumstances justifying extraordinary relief, and is exclusive of 

other remedies available under T.R. 60(B)(1), (2), (3), and (4).” Id. (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, if Father’s motion could have 

properly fallen under any of the provisions of Trial Rule 60(B)(1)-(4), then Trial 

Rule 60(B)(8) is unavailable. See id. at 280. 

[11] Father’s arguments are firmly based on newly discovered evidence and his 

allegation that Mother made misrepresentations at the April 13, 2016 hearing. 

To the extent Father’s motion for relief from judgment was based on newly 

discovered evidence under Rule 60(B)(2) or on alleged fraud or 

misrepresentation under Rule 60(B)(3), we note that a motion under those 

subparagraphs must be filed not more than one year after the judgment and that 

Father’s October 5, 2017 motion was filed more than one year after the court’s 

April 13, 2016 judgment. Father was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(B)(2) 

or (3). To the extent Father’s motion cited Rule 60(B)(8), we observe that Rule 

60(B) expressly states that the court may relieve a party from a judgment under 

subparagraph (8) for “any reason justifying relief from the operation of the 

judgment, other than those reasons set forth in sub-paragraphs . . . (2) [and] (3) . 

. . .” Because Father’s motion “could have properly fallen under” Rule 60(B)(2) 

or (3), Rule 60(B)(8) was unavailable. See Ind. Ins. Co., 734 N.E.2d at 280. 

[12] Based upon the record, Father has not established prima facie error or that the 

trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief from judgment 

and motion to correct error. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-653 | September 20, 2018 Page 8 of 8

[13] Affirmed. 

Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.