Stonger v. Sorrell

Summary

The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the denial of a father's Trial Rule 60(B) motion seeking to set aside a child-custody judgment based on alleged fraud on the court. The court clarified the procedural avenues and timing applicable to fraud-on-the-court claims under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). It held that the father failed to show that allegedly inaccurate or fabricated counseling materials actually influenced the custody decision.

Holdings

1. Under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B), a judgment may be challenged through a Rule 60(B)(3) motion based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct; an independent action for extrinsic fraud; or an independent action invoking the court's inherent power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
2. Because Father filed nearly three years after the custody judgment, his filing could not proceed as a Rule 60(B)(3) motion subject to the one-year limit; the court properly construed it as either an independent action or an invocation of the court's inherent power to address fraud on the court.
3. A party seeking relief for fraud on the court must prove that an unconscionable plan or scheme improperly influenced the court's decision and prevented the opposing party from fully and fairly presenting its case; showing merely that the court might have been misled is insufficient.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's Trial Rule 60(B) motion, and its findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous.

Questions Presented

1. What procedural mechanisms are available under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) to attack a judgment for fraud or fraud on the court?
2. Whether Father's post-judgment filing, made nearly three years after the custody judgment, could proceed as an independent action or invocation of the court's inherent power rather than as a Rule 60(B)(3) motion.
3. Whether Father established fraud on the court sufficient to set aside the custody judgment.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or entered clearly erroneous findings in denying relief.

Disposition

affirmed