existence of a meritorious claim in Indiana

1991See Westlake v. Benedict (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 27, 30 , trans. denied (quoting Fulton v. Van Slyke (1983), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 628, 637 ) (mentioning in passing that the existence of a meritorious claim is one of several factors the appellate tribunal should take into account when reviewing the reinstatement of a dismissed cause of action).

1990In Fulton, supra, at 687 , we noted the following factors favoring the grant of a T.R. 60(B) motion: [The substantial amount of money involved, the existence of a meritorious claim, the short length of time between the judgment and the request for relief, the presence of weighty policy determinations, and lack of prejudice to the defendant.

1999Bross v. Mobile Home Estates, 466 N.E.2d 467, 469 (Ind.Ct.App.1984).

1991Bross v. Mobile Home Estates, Inc. (1984), Ind. App., 466 N.E.2d 467 ; Fulton v. Van Slyke (1988), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 628 ; Carvey v. Indiana National Bank, (1978) 176 Ind.App. 152 , 874 N.E.2d 1178 ; Green v. Karol (1976), 168 Ind.App. 467 , 344 N.E.2d 106 .

2019Bunch v. Himm , 879 N.E.2d 632 , 637 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

2014The moving party “need not prove absolutely the existence of a meritorious defense.” Bunch v. Himm, 879 N.E.2d 632, 637 (Ind.Ct.App.2008).

2023Co. v. Radcliff, 18 N.E.3d 1006, 1016-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 3 Because we affirm the trial court’s ruling based on the timeliness requirement of T.R. 60(B)(8), we do not analyze A.W.’s argument concerning the existence of a meritorious claim or defense and his demonstration of some extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justifying equitable relief.

2015Additionally, “[w]hen considering the reinstatement of a cause of action, trial courts may consider a number of factors, including the amount of money involved, the existence of a meritorious claim, the length of time between the judgment’s entry and the request for relief, and the lack of prejudice to the defendant.” Danov v. Color Tile, Inc., 571 N.E.2d 327, 329 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (citations omitted), reh’g denied, trans. denied.

2015Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1409-MF-408 | August 18, 2015 Page 7 of 12 [11] To the extent Centier argues that Horizon has waived its argument under 60(B)(1) by failing to raise the argument before the trial court, we note that it is true that “‘[a]n appellant who presents an issue for the first time on appeal waives the issue for purposes of appellate review.’” Evergreen Shipping Agency Corp. v. Djuric Trucking, Inc., 996 N.E.2d 337, 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Mid-States Gen. & Mech.

2010In Lake County Trust No. 3190 v. Highland Plan Comm'n, 674 N.E.2d 626, 629 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), this court concluded that a plaintiff seeking to satisfy the meritorious claim requirement must, at the very least, provide information which would have allowed the trial court to refuse dismissal of the cause for failure to prosecute.

2008See Morrison v. Pro fessional Billing Serv., Inc., 559 N.E.2d 366, 368 (Ind.Ct.App.1990).

1998Langdon v. Langdon, 641 N.E.2d 673, 674 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).

1997State Dep’t of Natural Resources v. Van Keppel, 583 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied.

1991See Westlake v. Benedict (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 27, 30 , trans. denied (quoting Fulton v. Van Slyke (1983), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 628, 637 ) (mentioning in passing that the existence of a meritorious claim is one of several factors the appellate tribunal should take into account when reviewing the reinstatement of a dismissed cause of action).