49 N.E.3d 1110
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Discover filed a complaint against Greer for breach of credit agreement on August 5, 2015.
- Greer was served with summons and complaint on August 12, 2015; service purportedly left at Greer’s door.
- Greer did not answer; Discover moved for default judgment and trial court granted it.
- The default judgment stated the summons with return endorsed was issued.
- Greer received the default judgment by regular mail, sought a stay, and appealed after the stay was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of summons and complaint was adequate | Greer | Greer | Appeal dismissed for lack of Rule 60(B) motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Siebert Oxidermo, Inc. v. Shields, 446 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 1983) (Rule 60(B) procedure required before appeal)
- In re Estate of Carnes, 866 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appeal from default judgment must follow Rule 60(B))
- Maust v. Estate of Bair ex rel. Bair, 859 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (direct appeal from default judgment not proper absent Rule 60(B))
- Sekerez v. Jasper Cnty. Farm Bureau Co-op Ass’n, Inc., 458 N.E.2d 286 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (procedural requirements for challenging default judgments)
- Anderson v. Wayne Post 64, 4 N.E.3d 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (illustrates improper direct appeal without Rule 60(B))