Walden, 571 U.S. at 285 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479-80) (emphasis added)). Patil cites Sanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane, 153 N.E.3d 262 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020), in arguing that, “by reaching out to Patil, a content provider located in Indiana, and establishing an indefinite business relationship with Patil and FurorMedia in Indiana, 10PM Curfew purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Indiana.”

[9] We normally review the grant or denial of a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion, 487 Broadway Co., LLC v. Robinson , 147 N.E.3d 347, 350 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), but where, as here, a trial court addresses a pure question of law, our review is de novo. Sanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane, 153 N.E.3d 262, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Moreover, because Husband has not filed an appellee's brief, Wife is entitled to prevail on appeal if she demonstrates prima facie error.

We review the grant of a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion. E.g., Sanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane, 153 N.E.3d 262, 267 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020).

[7] We review the grant of a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion. E.g. , Sanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane , 153 N.E.3d 262, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

In addressing these arguments, we first observe that Newman improperly raised them for the first time in his motion to reconsider, after the trial court had already denied his petition to modify his sentence. SeeHubbard v. Hubbard , 690 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (concluding that a motion to reconsider filed after the rendering of final judgment is to be treated as a motion to correct error); Sanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane , 153 N.E.3d 262, 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) ("[I]t is well-settled that [a] party may not raise an issue for the first time in a motion to correct error[.]") (quotation omitted).

Because we have determined that Keep It Moving does not prevail under T.R. 60(B)(1), (3), or (8), we need not address the argument that it had a meritorious defense to Dawson's claims. SeeSanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane, 153 N.E.3d 262, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). B. Reduction of Damages

Because the Jarboe parties did not demonstrate mistake or excusable neglect, we need not address their claim that they had a meritorious defense to Thompson's claims. See Sanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane , 153 N.E.3d 262, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Jarboe's Defense of Case