952 N.E.2d 783
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Husband and Wife married in 2001; child B.W. was born in 2003.
- Dissolution filed in 2005; dissolution decree entered May 6, 2006, ordering Husband to pay $41 weekly child support.
- Husband later filed a 2010 motion to establish paternity via DNA based on alleged incarceration during conception.
- Trial court deemed the motion a Rule 60(B) request and denied for untimeliness and lack of proper basis.
- Husband filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court again denied; Wife did not file a respondent brief.
- Court of Appeals affirmed denial, holding no basis for relief under Rule 60(B) and no timely independent action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TR 60(B)(3) intrinsic fraud claims are timely | Husband asserts fraud by Wife affected the judgment. | Wife argues 60(B)(3) requires within one year. | Untimely under 60(B)(3); not a valid basis for relief. |
| Whether TR 60(B) permits an independent action to relieve a judgment for fraud upon the court | Motion could be an independent action to relieve judgment due to fraud on the court. | Fraud alleged is not extrinsic or fraud upon the court; otherwise barred by laches/time. | Independent action available only for extrinsic fraud or fraud upon the court; not satisfied here. |
| Whether the dissolution decree and presumptions about paternity foreclose relief | Presumption and silence about paternity undermine the court’s fairness. | Presumption and lack of evidence of extrinsic fraud or unconscionable scheme; intrinsic fraud governs. | B.W. presumed child of the marriage; no extrinsic fraud or fraud upon the court proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thurman v. Thurman, 777 N.E.2d 41 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (prima facie error standard when no brief)
- Van Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 216 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (abuses of discretion review for 60(B) motions; absence of brief)
- Dominiack Mechanical, Inc. v. Dunbar, 757 N.E.2d 186 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (require correct legal application; do not reweigh evidence)
- Scales v. Scales, 891 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (abuse of discretion standard for 60(B) relief)
- Miller v. Moore, 696 N.E.2d 888 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (abuse of discretion in denying relief from judgment)
- Beike v. Beike, 805 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (fraud standards under 60(B); intrinsic vs extrinsic)
- Glover v. Torrence, 723 N.E.2d 924 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (extrinsic fraud vs fraud on the court; definitions)
- Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353 (Ind.2002) (independent action for fraud on the court; laches)
- Cooper v. Cooper, 608 N.E.2d 1386 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (paternity presumptions in dissolution contexts)
- Stolberg v. Stolberg, 538 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (silence and presumptions in dissolution proceedings)