The Indiana Commercial Foreclosure Blog has an interesting (to me, anyway) discussion about whether it is better to seek a summary judgment or a default judgment against a defendant who fails to respond to a complaint. The notion is that a summary judgment might be harder for a defendant to set aside later. Legally, I think this idea makes sense, but in practice, I suspect it would not make a great deal of difference. I suspect, without knowing, that trial court judges would bring their default judgment sensibilities (and these vary widely – from almost automatically setting them aside when challenged to almost never setting them aside) to bear when considering whether to set aside the judgment, regardless if it was obtained under the Trial Rule 56 summary judgment procedures.
As a practical matter, you are probably right, and the blog you link makes good points about expense and the like. Still, the potency of a summary judgment in an Indiana state court comes from Desai v. Croy and that whole line of cases, which give the court absolutely no discretion unless the party that is subject to the SJ motion files a response/designates evidence, asks for additional time, or files affidavits indicating why additional time is necessary. It’s been my recent experience that trial judges have taken those cases to heart, almost to a fault (I spent yesterday trying to convince a judge that he had discretion re: the rule 56 deadlines in the circumstances of my case). Technically, setting aside a properly entered SJ motion on the basis of a belated response is reversible error. But, as you note, the practical effect may be the same. Particularly in a collections matter, it might be tough to justify the cost of an appeal.