dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 53.3, Marcia’s motion to correct error was deemed denied thirty days after the trial court’s May 14, 2007, hearing on her motion to correct error, and that its nunc pro tunc order was for naught.
The decree of dissolution was issued on October 10, 2006. On November 8, 2006, Marcia timely filed her motion to correct error. See Indiana Trial Rule 59(C). Her motion argued that the trial court had erred in its distribution of the marital assets. The trial court set the matter for hearing, and on May 14, 2007, the parties appeared. Marcia asserts, and James does not dispute, that at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated as follows:
“[U]pon consideration of the arguments that have been made by both sides and actually upon closer review of [Martial’s Exhibit 15, originally, quite frankly, I gave [James] the pension and well, I’m going to grant the Motion to Correct Errors in the following respects. The pension will be split 50/50, and I am going to ask [James’ attorney] for you to prepare the Qualified Domestic Relations Order and ... I’m going to award [Wife] a Property Equalization Judgment in the sum of $18,588.00.”
Marcia’s Br. at 6 (quoting App. 38).
According to Trial Rule 53.3, a motion to correct error is deemed denied when
(1) the trial court fails for forty-fivé (45) days to set the motion to correct error for hearing, or
(2) the trial court fails to rule on the motion within thirty (30) days of the hearing held on the motion, or
(3) if no hearing was required, and the trial court fails to rule on the motion within forty-five days after its filing.
Here, there was a hearing on the motion, and I read the record to establish that the trial court did in fact “rule on the motion” at the conclusion of that hearing. Id. Therefore, I would not find Trial Rule 53.3 to have dispositive effect here.
*230I believe that at the conclusion of the hearing, the parties understood that the trial court had granted Marcia’s motion— and the specific substance of its ruling. There is no indication that James’ attorney-expressed to the trial court an unwillingness to prepare the order to effect the trial court’s order. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the trial court to have asked James’ attorney to prepare the order, in order to protect his interest and to insure that the matter was properly addressed by James’ employer. Further, there was no reason for Marcia to have anticipated that James’ attorney would fail to comply with the trial court and not prepare the order as directed. Nor was there any reason for Marcia to anticipate that an order prepared by James’ attorney consistent with the magistrate’s ruling would not have been adopted and signed by the trial court. Thus, I would conclude that having gained' a favorable ruling, there was absolutely no reason for Marcia to act to initiate an appeal at that point.
I cannot find that equity would countenance the result reached by the majority. It was James’ attorney who failed to honor the obligation to which he had agreed, and I cannot accept a result that allows James to profit by that failure. Equity “looks to the substance and not the form,” and “a court of equity has the power to require that to be done which should have been done.” Walter v. Balogh, 619 N.E.2d 566, 568 (Ind.1993). I believe that the trial court’s nunc pro tunc entry was a proper exercise of its equity power by the trial court. Therefore, I cannot agree that the trial court abused its discretion in that regard.