Court Opinion

ID: 9715230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:58:08.414544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:32.740885
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s determination that an actual hearing with counsel present and argument afforded is not mandated by Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 56 before a motion for summary judgment may be ruled upon. I further agree that in the absence of such a hearing the parties are entitled to reasonable notice of a date certain within which they must submit any materials they desire to have considered in the submission.
However, I cannot subscribe to the notion that the purposes for such notification are fulfilled merely by the lapse of 4Vi months within which materials might have been filed.
On the other hand, the appellant did not by TR. 60 motion or by other means ever bring before the court precisely the facts he *1231now asserts he was prevented from utilizing. Indeed, we have been left in the dark on appeal as to what these facts may consist of. In my view, the appellant has thus failed to demonstrate prejudice from the court’s premature entry of judgment.
It follows that the error was thus not reversible. For this reason I concur in the result reached.