Tucker v. Williams, 7 So.3d 961, 967–68 ( ¶¶ 23–24) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (correspondence between attorneys in which defendant's attorney said defendants intended to file a counterclaim was “obviously a statement indicative of intent to defend a claim,” and defendants were entitled to Rule 55(b) notice). But see Kumar v. Loper, 80 So.3d 808, 813–14 (Miss.2012) (letter sent before case was filed and one phone call from former attorney did not constitute an appearance); Rogillio, 10 So.3d at 475–76 ( ¶¶ 30–36) (one phone conversation between insurance company's claims specialist and plaintiff's attorney, the content of which was disputed, did not constitute an appearance); Williams v. Kelly, 872 So.2d 783, 785–86 ( ¶¶ 11–14) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (defendant had not appeared for Rule 55(b) purposes even though he attended a deposition pursuant to a subpoena prior to being named as a party in the case, and even though his attorney attempted to contact plaintiff's attorney). ¶ 17.
Tucker v. Williams, 7 So. 3d 961, 967-68 (¶¶ 23-24) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (correspondence between attorneys in which defendant's attorney said defendants intended to file a counterclaim was "obviously a statement indicative of intent to defend a claim," and defendants were entitled to Rule 55(b) notice). But see Kumar v. Loper, 80 So. 3d 808, 813-14 (Miss. 2012) (letter sent before case was filed and one phone call from former attorney did not constitute an appearance); Rogillio, 10 So. 3d at 475-76 (¶¶ 30-36) (one phone conversation between insurance company's claims specialist and plaintiff's attorney, the content of which was disputed, did not constitute an appearance); Williams v. Kelly, 872 So. 2d 783, 785-86 (¶¶ 11-14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (defendant had not appeared for Rule 55(b) purposes even though he attended a deposition pursuant to a subpoena prior to being named as a party in the case, and even though his attorney attempted to contact plaintiff's attorney). ¶17. In Rogillio, a claims specialist for American States Insurance Company spoke with Rogillio's counsel by phone.
Under Rule 60(b), a trial court may grant relief based on a sufficient showing of fraud, mistake or other justifiable reason. Williams v. Kelly, 872 So.2d 783, 785 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). Rule 60(b) reads, in pertinent part, as follows: