Title: Riddle v. Cress
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 20S-PL-573
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: October 2, 2020

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. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Oct 02 2020, 2:21 pm
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 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 Barrett & Wilkowski 
Greenwood, Indiana