Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): would seem to be an outstanding liability of CCI that would affect its net worth and, therefore, Jeff's total net worth as a CCI shareholder. 7 . We are cognizant that our refusal to consider this issue now could lead to more litigation in the future, given the litigiousness of these parties, but this does not permit us to ignore jurisdictional rules. See In re Guardianship of Hickman, 811 N.E.2d 843, 850 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied. We further note that even if the trial court revisits the question of modifying Jeff's child support obligation upon termination of this appeal, such modification could only be made effective upon the date the trial court reobtains jurisdiction following certification of this appeal as final. See Harris v. Harris, 800 N.E.2d 930, 937 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. 8 . Despite the Crider 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court was permitted to rule on child support modification request filed before appeal was certified as final but that effective date of modification could be no earlier than when indiana supreme court denied transfer on appeal and trial court reobtained jurisdiction (B) holding that a conviction is deemed final on the date of sentencing when there is no evidence that notice of appeal was filed (C) holding that since district court of appeal properly found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3850 motion during the pendency of a direct appeal the district court of appeal should have vacated the order rather than affirming on the merits (D) holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction (E) holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal
Output (English): holding that since district court of appeal properly found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3850 motion during the pendency of a direct appeal the district court of appeal should have vacated the order rather than affirming on the merits