Common v. Kahlenbeck
This text of 421 N.E.2d 421 (Common v. Kahlenbeck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Brendonwood Common petitions this court to rehear an appeal which affirmed the trial court’s denial of an Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment.
Brendonwood, because it did not receive notice of entry of judgment until after the time allowed for filing a motion to correct errors, filed a T.R. 60 motion for relief from judgment which was denied.
In affirming this denial, we held: “Bren-donwood did not allege, nor did it show, that it exercised due diligence in ascertaining the status of the case.... [AJbsent a showing of diligence ..., we cannot say the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment.” Brendonwood Common v. Kahlenbeck, (1981) Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 1335 at 1337.
In its petition for rehearing Brendonwood complains that we failed to consider the affidavit of William C. Beckman which was filed with this court. The affidavit stated that Beckman checked the docket sheet on May 11,1979 and the judgment had not yet been entered.
In reviewing the decision of the trial court we consider the record compiled in the trial court. We do not consider evidence presented for the first time on appeal.1
Petition for Rehearing denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
421 N.E.2d 421, 1981 Ind. App. LEXIS 1390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/common-v-kahlenbeck-indctapp-1981.