Ruben Pazmino v. 2444 Acquisitions, LLC (mem. dec.), 49A02-1701-PL-53

Pazmino was a 49% owner of 2444 Acquisitions and 51% owner of El Sol Also Rises, Inc., which leased property from 2444 and operated a restaurant through July 2014.
El Sol failed to pay rent while Pazmino operated the restaurant; bankruptcy court awarded 2444 Acquisitions $255,581.95 against El Sol and found Pazmino breached fiduciary duties (a non‑core determination precluding a final bankruptcy judgment as to certain issues).
2444 Acquisitions sued Pazmino in state court to enforce the bankruptcy award and alleged tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and that Pazmino was personally liable for El Sol’s debts; service was by publication after certified mail was returned undeliverable.
The state trial court entered default judgment against Pazmino for $255,581.95 after he did not respond; Pazmino moved under Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) to set aside the default judgment, claiming mistake/excusable neglect and lack of actual notice.
The trial court denied the motion, concluding Pazmino lacked a meritorious defense; Pazmino appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (2444 Acquisitions)	Defendant's Argument (Pazmino)	Held
Whether the default judgment should be set aside under T.R. 60(B)	Service by publication was proper and judgment should stand	Pazmino lacked actual notice, showing excusable neglect and relief is warranted	Court: Waived personal‑jurisdiction challenge but excusable neglect/ lack of actual notice satisfied T.R.60(B)(1)/(4) requirement
Whether Pazmino alleged meritorious defenses sufficient to set aside default	The complaint and prior bankruptcy findings establish liability; no meritorious defense shown	Pazmino argued he cannot be held personally liable for corporate debts absent veil‑piercing/alter‑ego proof	Court: No meritorious defense on Counts I–III; meritorious defense alleged as to Count IV (personal liability) — set aside as to Count IV
Whether personal jurisdiction by publication could be contested on appeal	Publication service was adequate	Pazmino argued publication was inadequate	Court: Pazmino failed to raise lack of personal jurisdiction in his 60(B) motion and thus waived the issue on appeal
Scope of relief following bankruptcy court findings	Bankruptcy court’s non‑core finding supports enforcement against El Sol and related claims	Pazmino contended bankruptcy did not adjudicate his personal liability	Court: Bankruptcy court found breach of fiduciary duty but did not determine Pazmino’s personal liability for all El Sol debts; state court must evaluate veil‑piercing for Count IV

Coslett v. Weddle Bros. Const. Co., Inc., 798 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. 2003) (default judgments disfavored; courts should prefer merits disposition)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 747 N.E.2d 545 (Ind. 2001) (appellate review of trial court’s default‑relief decision is for abuse of discretion)
Bunch v. Himm, 879 N.E.2d 632 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (meritorious defense defined as one that would lead to a different result on the merits)
JK Harris & Co., LLC v. Sandlin, 942 N.E.2d 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (default judgment amounts to confession of well‑pleaded allegations)
Heartland Resources, Inc. v. Bedel, 903 N.E.2d 1004 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (party may waive lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to contest it)
Ferguson v. Stevens, 851 N.E.2d 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (setting aside default where service was by publication and defendant lacked actual knowledge)
Ziese & Sons Excavating, Inc. v. Boyer Const. Corp., 965 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (piercing the corporate veil/alter‑ego is highly fact‑sensitive)
Kretschmer v. Bank of Am., N.A., 15 N.E.3d 595 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (failure to receive actual notice due to faulty process can constitute excusable neglect)
Teegardin v. Maver’s, Inc., 622 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (broad denials of claims are insufficient to establish a meritorious defense)