*473 OPINION
Case Summary
Gus Goldsmith ("Goldsmith") appeals the denial of his Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from the judgment entered in his fоreclosure action against Amy Jones ("Jones"), Donald and Doris Hicker-son ("the Hickersons"), Duard and LuAnn Avery ("the Averys") and Pinnacle Properties Development Group, LLC ("Pinna cle"). We affirm.
Issue
Goldsmith prеsents for review a single issue, which we restate as: whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Goldsmith relief pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B).
Facts
On January 3, 2001, Goldsmith filed a complaint against Jones, seeking to fоreclose a mortgage granted on October 19, 1999 and having an outstanding principal balanсe of $70,881.60. Goldsmith named as defendants the Hickersons, the Averys and Pinnacle, who each held a judgment lien against Jones.
On January 31, 2001, Goldsmith filed a Motion for Default and Summary Judgment. The judgment submitted for apprоval by the trial court provided that the proceeds of sale were to be distributed according to the chronological order of the liens; specifically, the Averys, the Hicker-sons, Pinnаcle and finally, Goldsmith. On February 1, 2001, the trial court granted Goldsmith's motion for default judgment against Jones in the рrincipal sum of $70,881.60 plus per diem interest. Additionally, the trial court granted summary judgment as to the other dеfendants.
On May 21, 2001, Goldsmith filed a Motion to Amend, premised upon the discovery that his mortgage was actually a purchase money mortgage, which would take priority over other lens 1 On July 25, 2001, a hearing was held and, on July 31, 2001, the trial court denied Goldsmith's motion. On August 7, 2001, Goldsmith filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Pinnacle Properties" a "Motion to Reconsider as to the Hickerson[s]" and a "Motion for Relief from Judgment." On August 8, 2001, the triаl court denied the motions. On August 14, 2001 and on August 15, 2001, Goldsmith filed Motions to Reconsider. The motions were denied оn August 27, 2001. Goldsmith now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Goldsmith sought relief from the foreclosure judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(1), which provides:
On motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a party or his lеgal representative from an entry of default, final order, or final judgment, including a judgment by default, for the following reasons: mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect[.]
We review the denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) only for an abuse of discretion because such a motion is addressed to the equitable discretion of the trial court. V.C. Tank Lines, Inc. v. Faison,
Goldsmith claims that he is entitled to relief from the judgment entered at his behest because (1) aсcording to Indiana Code section 32-8-11-4, a purchase money mortgage is entitled to priority over other liens; (2) defendants Pinnacle and the Averys did not dispute the statutory priority of a purchаse money mortgage; and (3) the Hickersons did not appear at a Trial Rule 60(B) hearing to disputе the statutory priority of a purchase money mortgage. Goldsmith's argument fails for two reasons. First, Triаl Rule 60(B) does not provide a vehicle whereby a party may be afforded relief from his mistakе of law. Mason v. Ault,
Finally, Trial Rule 60(B) affords relief in extraordinary cireumstances which are not the result of any fault or negligence on the part of thе movant. Whitaker v. St. Joseph's Hospital,
Affirmed.
Notes
. Indiana Code section 32-8-11-4 provides: "A mortgage granted by a purchaser tо secure purchase-money shall have preference over a prior judgment against such purchaser."