Garcia v. Ball, 323 P.3d 872

Garcia obtained a default judgment against Ball for failure to file an answer within required time.
Ball sought relief from the default judgment claiming excusable neglect under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(1).
District court granted Ball’s motion to set aside the default judgment without Ball providing factual basis or affidavits.
Garcia argued there was no evidentiary support for excusable neglect and that the court should deny relief.
Hearing occurred; Ball did not attend and offered only a speculative explanation through counsel.
Appellate court reversed, holding no basis for excusable neglect was shown; district court’s discretion abused.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether excusable neglect supports relief from judgment under 60-260(b)(1).	Garcia contends Ball failed to show any factual basis for excusable neglect.	Ball argues excusable neglect exists despite lack of detailed facts.	No; excusable neglect not shown factually or evidentially.
Whether the motion was properly supported with factual basis or affidavits.	Garcia asserts no evidence supports neglect claim.	Ball offered only a speculative rationale via counsel.	Yes; lack of evidence requires denial of relief.

Lackey v. Medora Township, 194 Kan. 794 (Kan. 1965) (necessity of a factual basis for relief under 60-260(b)(1))
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Dismang, 106 F.2d 362 (2d Cir. 1939) (abuse of discretion to set aside without excuse or ground)
In re Knight, 833 F.2d 1515 (11th Cir. 1987) (set aside default requires good reason for default)
Tyler v. Cowen Construction, Inc., 216 Kan. 401 (Kan. 1975) (inadvertence not the same as excusable neglect)
State ex rel. Stovall v. Alivio, 275 Kan. 169 (Kan. 2003) (cases require substantial justification for relief from judgment)
Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116 (Kan. 2003) (exoneration rule; burden on movant to show grounds for relief)