Title: Personnel Board v. Wilson

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

256 Ind. 674 (1971)
271 N.E.2d 448
INDIANA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, ET AL.
v.
MAMIE T. WILSON.
No. 271S21.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed July 26, 1971.
Rehearing denied September 8, 1971.
*675 Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, William F. Thompson, Deputy Attorney General, for Appellant.
Frank E. Spencer, of Indianapolis, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This case stems from the lay-off from employment by the Department of Corrections of Mamie T. Wilson, Appellee, a state merit service employee. The Indiana State Personnel Board, having conducted a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act, Acts of 1947, Chapter 365, ordered that Mamie T. Wilson be reinstated, effective January 1, 1970, to the position of her former employment, and further that she be paid for all of the back wages and benefits which were due her from the last day on the payroll at the Department of Corrections to January 1, 1970,
On November 4, 1970, after this case had been submitted to the trial court for a review of the said determination by the Indiana State Personnel Board, the Marion Superior Court, Room 5, Honorable Addison Dowling, Judge, entered its special findings of fact and conclusions of law and the following "Judgment".
When this cause was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Indiana State Personnel Board filed with said transcript only an "Assignment of Errors" and "Brief for Appellants-Defendants."
Upon the filing of the "Brief for Appellants-Defendants" and service upon the Attorney for the Appellee, said Appellee filed her "Motion to Dismiss" and supporting Brief based simply upon the proposition that, although the judgment was rendered on November 4, 1970, by the trial court, there was no motion to correct errors filed in said cause to direct the attention of the trial court to any error as alleged by said Appellant; that the time within which such a motion to correct errors could be filed has elapsed; that the jurisdiction of this Court has not been invoked and that the appeal should be dismissed. The Brief of the Indiana State Personnel Board counters upon the claim that this action was pursuant to the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act and that said Act, Burns 63-3019 specifies in part that:
The Indiana State Personnel Board's Brief then argues that the motion to correct errors serves the same function as the former motion for a new trial and that said statute, also prohibits the filing of a motion to correct errors.
Reference is made to the case of Bradburn v. County Department of Public Welfare (1971), 266 N.E.2d 805, wherein the Appellate Court of Indiana, on page 806 of 266 N.E.2d stated as follows:
This Court recently denied a petition to transfer the Bradburn case on May 18, 1971, so that said case now stands for the general proposition that a motion to correct is required *678 and takes the place of the assignment of errors under the former rules of procedure. However, it is urged that the Bradburn case did not involve the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act, and that the statutory procedure prescribed by said Act should prevail in this case, which allegedly requires no motion for new trial or motion to correct errors and in fact prohibits the filing of such. Said Act, however, is the Acts of 1947, Chapter 365 and the particular section involved, Section 19, Burns 63-3019, was last amended by the Acts of 1957, Chap. 355.
This Court, on July 29, 1969, adopted complete new rules of procedure both for trial and appellate procedure, effective on and after January 1, 1970. In the consideration of such rules, this Court had before it the provisions of the Acts of 1969, Ch. 191, by which the General Assembly purported to adopt the "Indiana Rules of Civil Procedure." This Court, in the adoption of its rules of trial procedure, accepted a part of said Ch. 191 of the Acts of 1969, but in many respects rejected the legislative proposal.
One of the areas in which this Court rejected said legislative proposal was in the scope of applicability. As proposed by the Legislature, there would have been an exception as provided in Rule 81 of Ch. 191, Acts of 1969. The said Rule 81 exception, entitled "Applicability in General", was an attempt to save certain statutory remedies and proceedings and said Rule 81, as proposed by the Legislature, would have specifically provided in subparagraph (f) as follows:
This Court, however, did not adopt said Rule 81 as proposed by the Legislature, but instead deleted the same in its entirety *679 and Rule 81 as adopted by this Court became the rule pertaining to local court rules. Moreover, this Court Order, dated July 29, 1969, adopting its trial and appellate rules expressly states:
TR. 1 of this Court now provides as follows:
This would indicate this Court's intention that matters of procedure be governed uniformly by its rules, and that any exceptions in accordance with a statutory procedure be expressly provided or recognized by the rules themselves. For example, AP. 3 (B) provides:
TR. 59 pertains to "Motion to Correct Errors" and is applicable to all cases, in that it provides those in which such a motion to correct errors is a requisite and those in which such a requisite is not required. Specifically, TR. 59 (G) provides as follows:
The above sub-section (G) provides the only exclusions when a motion to correct errors shall not be required. Said sub-section also explicitly provides that issues which could be raised by a motion to correct errors must be so raised in order to be considered upon appeal.
Moreover, AP. 7.2 (A) (1) "Record of the Proceedings", provides as follows:
Thus, it is the purpose of the rules, pertaining to both trial and appellate procedure, that the motion to correct errors must be filed in all instances, except for the particular instances provided in TR. 59 (G), so that all matters of which a party complains in any proceedings in the trial court must be first brought to the attention of that court and opportunity given to said court to correct said alleged errors before an appeal can be taken. This was not done in this case and this Court is without jurisdiction of this attempted appeal.
*681 It is, therefore, the opinion of this Court that the Appellee's "Motion to Dismiss" be sustained because a motion to correct errors was not filed with the trial court and said case does not fall within any of the exceptions provided by TR. 59 (G).
Appellee's Motion to Dismiss is sustained and this attempted appeal is dismissed.
DeBruler, J., dissents.
NOTE.  Reported in 271 N.E.2d 448.