the pleadings and summary judgment materials, that St. Francis alleged it has a meritorious claim for payment. We next consider whether the trial court's summary reinstatement of St. Francis's claim without a hearing was improper. T.R. 60(D) provides as follows: Hearing and relief granted. In passing upon a motion allowed by subdivision (B) of this rule the court shall hear any pertinent evidence, allow new parties to be served with summons, allow discovery, grant relief as provided under Rule 59 or otherwise as permitted by subdivision (B) of this rule. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the plain language of the foregoing subdivision requires a hearing. See also State ex rel. AAFCO Heating and Air Conditioning Co., Inc. v. Lake Superior Court, 263 Ind. 233, 235, 328 N.E.2d 733, 734 (1975) (<HOLDING>). St. Francis claims that the trial court
holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm holding that a grant of a tr 60b motion requires notice to the opposing party and a hearing holding that a lower court cannot grant a rule 60b motion after an appeal has been filed unless the appellate court grants a limited remand upon the trial court entering a memorandum indicating its inclination to grant the rule 60b motion holding that while a district court lacks jurisdiction to deny a 60b motion while an appeal is pending it can certify that it will grant a 60b motion if the court of appeals remands the case for that purpose holding that a party might be entitled to a hearing on a rule 60b motion when the party presents evidence of extraordinary circumstances to support a reversal of the judgment