Legal Opinion · Concurrence

McGee v. Reynolds

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided August 3, 1993No. 49A02-9209-CV-452Published

1ConcurrenceRucker, Judge

I agree the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the default judgment. However, I do so for reasons different than those discussed by the majority. First, I am not persuaded McGee's attorney engaged in either fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct contemplated by Ind. Trial Rule 60(B)(8) which would afford relief to Reynolds. On the other hand, Ind. Trial Rule 60(B)(4), the alternative ground upon which Reynolds' motion was based, permits the court to set aside a default judgment where judgment was entered against a party served only by publication and without…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Shotwell v. Cliff Hagan Ribeye Franchise, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Duncan v. BinfordIndiana Court of Appeals · 1972
  3. Keiling v. McIntireIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API