Opinion ID: 2829707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Any Reason Justifying Relief”

Text: Having determined that Huntington is not entitled to relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(1), we now turn our attention to another subset of Trial Rule 60, subsection (B)(8), in order to resolve whether under the circumstances the trial court abused its discretion in failing to set aside the default judgment for equitable reasons, among them Huntington’s meritorious defense of a prior mortgage. Under Trial Rule 60(B)(8), a trial court has the discretion to set aside a default judgment for “any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment” other than those set forth in 9 other subsections of Trial Rule 60 1 if the party’s motion is filed “within a reasonable time” and the party alleges a meritorious claim or defense. “When a Trial Rule 60(B)(8) motion is filed, the burden is on the movant to demonstrate that relief is both necessary and just.” Gipson v. Gipson, 644 N.E.2d 876, 877 (Ind. 1994) (citation omitted). As with subsection (B)(1), the decision whether to grant or deny a party’s motion is left to the trial court’s equitable discretion and highly fact specific. Id. In addition to claiming its 2005 mortgage as a meritorious defense to Car-X’s underlying suit, 2 Huntington lists five considerations it contends support setting aside the default judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) for equitable reasons: (1) its substantial interest in the real estate through its mortgage; (2) its “excusable reason” for untimely responding; (3) its quick action to set aside the default judgment once the complaint and summons were discovered; (4) its significant loss if the default judgment is not set aside; and (5) the minimal prejudice to Car-X should the case be reinstated. (Appellant’s Br. at 9.) We think it best to remand to the trial court to reevaluate Huntington’s motion upon consideration of these and all relevant circumstances 3—especially Huntington’s meritorious defense to the underlying suit, the substantial amount of money involved, and the lack of prejudice to Car-X. Should the trial court find that Huntington demonstrated sufficient grounds for relief from default judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(8), then the case shall proceed to a resolution on its merits. Lastly, we caution that the important and even essential policies necessitating the use of default judgments—maintaining an orderly and efficient judicial system, facilitating the speedy 1 These subsections are (B)(1) (mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect); (B)(2) (any ground that could be raised on motion to correct error); (B)(3) (fraud); and (B)(4) (default without proper notice). 2 At oral argument, Car-X conceded that Huntington has a meritorious defense. 3 The trial court may also consider our finding that Huntington failed to establish excusable neglect. 10 determination of justice, and enforcing compliance with procedural rules—should not come at the expense of professionalism, civility, and common courtesy. Standard Lumber Co. of St. John, Inc. v. Josevski, 706 N.E.2d 1092, 1095 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “An extreme remedy,” a default judgment “is not a trap to be set by counsel to catch unsuspecting litigants” and should not be used as a “gotcha” devise when an email or even a phone call to the opposing party inquiring about the receipt of service would prevent a windfall recovery and enable fulfillment of our strong preference to resolve cases on their merits. Smith, 711 N.E.2d at 1264; Coslett, 798 N.E.2d at 861. This is especially true where, as here, it is easy to locate the opposing party or counsel, and just as simple to pick up a phone and remind counsel of an imminent deadline—a courtesy every attorney would like (and may very well need) extended to him or her at some point in his or her career. Such a moment of professionalism and civility can reap significant dividends, both in the resolution of the case itself and the legal community in general. By fostering a spirit of fair competition and collegiality, courteous attorneys better serve their clients and greatly improve the quality of our profession. After all, the practice of law is a marathon, not a sprint, and attorneys would be well advised to remember that procedural rules are not intended to be used as swords to obtain judgments. Our profession deserves better. Though trial courts may continue to grant default judgments where a party undoubtedly fails to defend or prosecute a lawsuit, we strongly urge attorneys not to resort to seeking such a measure unless and until no other method would move the case forward.