Court Opinion

ID: 9525332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:02:14.503877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:23.033353
License: Public Domain

YOUNG, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. A careful review of the record reveals that Oler failed to meet his burden of proving lack of notice. Although his attorney stated by affidavit that he did not receive notice of the change in hearing dates, the docket sheet and the *353court reporter’s testimony indicate that notice was given to the attorney by mail and by phone. The secretary for the estate’s attorney testified that she received such notice. Only one of the three secretaries employed by Oler’s attorney was present to testify at the hearing on the T.R. 60(B) motion, and her testimony was limited to her practice regarding phone messages. Oler never presented any evidence as to the law firm’s practice regarding receipt of mail. He therefore failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Graham v. Schreifer (1984), Ind.App., 467 N.E.2d 800, 802. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.