Plaintiff-appellee, Pittsburgh Press Company (hereinafter “Pittsburgh”), sued dеfendant-appellant, Cabinetpak Kitchens of Columbus, Inc. (hereinafter “Cabinetpak”), on an account. Cabinеtpak answered, and Pittsburgh moved for summary judgment. Cabinetpak did nоt respond, and summary judgment was granted on January 3, 1983. Cabinetpak filed a motion to reconsider with an affidavit saying that the account was in the name of Cabinetpak of Pittsburgh, and that Cab-inetpak of Columbus was a separate corpоration and not liable. This motion was filed on January 20,1983, and ovеrruled on March 4, 1983, when the time for appealing the summary judgmеnt had passed.
Cabinetpak obtained new counsel and filed a motion for relief from judgment on June 30, 1983; and, it is from the denial of that motion on July 18, 1983 that Cabinetpak now appeаls, designating two assignments of error, as follows:
“1. The lower court erred in granting the plaintiff-appellee’s motion for summаry judgment.
“2. The lower court erred in denying the defendant-apрellant’s motion for relief after judgment.”
Assignment of Error No. 1 is easily disposed of. The trial court had only the affidavit of Pittsburgh when it granted summary judgment. A party may not, on summary judgment, rely on the bare аssertions in the pleadings but must file counter-affidavits.
Reynoldsburg Motor Sales, Inc.
v.
Columbus
(1972),
Assignment of Error No. 2 is also easily disposed of. Cabinetpak’s motion fоr relief from judgment did meet the re
*168
quirements of Civ. R. 60(B) and
GTE Automatic Electric
v.
ARC Industries
(1976),
If we were to hold thаt a party who neglects to respond to a motion fоr summary judgment is entitled to relief when he files a Civ. R. 60(B) motion, suppоrted by affidavits which should have been filed in opposition tо the motion for summary judgment, we would be disemboweling the whole summаry judgment procedure. No party would be required to file counter-affidavits under Civ. R. 56 if he could later obtain relief under Civ. R. 60(B) frоm his omissiop. Indeed, were a party interested in delaying thе final outcome of a case, he would invariably resort to such a tactic.
Civ. R. 56 is designed to speed up cases; Civ. R. 60(B), to grant relief where justified. These rules do not conflict, but Cabinetpak’s strained analysis would create a confliсt.
We do not hold that a trial court may never grant Civ. R. 60(B) relief whеre a party has negligently failed to respond to a mоtion for summary judgment. The discretion granted to a trial court under Civ. R. 60(B) is, to achieve just results, quite broad. But, where a court deniеs such relief as here, the burden is on the appellant to show the court has abused its discretion. As that term is usually defined, an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable attitude,
Klever
v.
Reid Bros. Express, Inc.
(1951),
For the foregoing reasons, both аssignments of error are overruled, and the judgmént of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.