Opinion ID: 2617088
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wright presented a meritorious defense.

Text: A Rule 60(b) movant usually must show a meritorious defense. [24] A showing of a meritorious defense requires more than `a perfunctory statement that a meritorious defense exists.' [25] The defaulting party must show that the result of granting relief may differ from the outcome of allowing the default judgment to stand. [26] This requirement may not apply where relief is predicated on a trial court's fundamental procedural error. In this case, even assuming that the requirement does apply, we agree with Wright that his defense of non-paternity is a meritorious defense. In response to Shorten's complaint, Wright squarely denied that he is Sally's biological father. [27] Further, he presented medical evidence in support of his claim. The result of granting relief is likely to differ from the outcome of allowing the default judgment to stand.