Spence v. Supreme Heating & Air Conditioning Co.
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
YOUNG, Judge.
In their cross-appeal, defendants-appel-lees Supreme Heating and Air Conditioning Company, Inc. and Isbell’s Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. contend that the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs-appellants James and Sandra Spence’s Trial Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment. Supreme and Isbell’s claim that the trial court’s failure to give them notice of the motion and to hold a hearing on the motion requires us to reverse the trial court’s judgment. We agree and reverse and remand.
The relevant facts are as follows: On January 15, 1979, the Spences commenced their…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State Ex Rel. AAFCO Heating & Conditioning Co. v. Lake Superior CourtIndiana Supreme Court · 1975
- Gemmer v. DiehlIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
- Davidson v. American Laundry MacHinery DivisionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1982
- Sowers v. SowersIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
3Cited by3 opinions
- Integrated Home Technologies, Inc. v. DraperIndiana Court of Appeals · 2000
- Spence v. Supreme Heating & Air Conditioning Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1982
- Spence v. Supreme Heating & Air Conditioning Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1982