With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on 12 April 2000. Mr. Sellers learned of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment after contacting Mr. Shaw’s office for an update on the status of this matter. Mr. Shaw’s secretary informed Mr. Sellers that the case had been dismissed on grounds of “police immunity,” but apparently indicated that she had spoken with Mr. Shaw, who felt the dismissal was improper and said he would ask for a re-hearing. Mr. Sellers waited to hear from Mr. Shaw’s office, and eventually went by his office again for an update; however, he found the office vacant and was told that Mr. Shaw had retired due to health reasons. Shortly thereafter Mr. Sellers retained attorney Thomas M. Van Camp, and on 13 November 2000 Mr. Sellers filed a motion to set aside the trial court’s 12 April 2000 grant of (1978) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, Mr. Sellers’ complaint

A: holding that a rule 60b6 movant must show the existence of a meritorious prima facie defense
B: recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense
C: holding that a motion that alleged rule 60b1 grounds could not be treated as a rule 60b6 motion in the absence of allegations of aggravating circumstances
D: holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm
A.