Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 67A04-1606-DR-1312 | March 3, 2017 Page 1 of 6

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Dylan A. Vigh

Law Offices of Dylan A. Vigh, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Caleb Riggen,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

Tammy Riggen,

Appellee-Respondent.

March 3, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

67A04-1606-DR-1312

Appeal from the Putnam Superior 

Court

The Honorable Charles D. Bridges, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

67D01-1309-DR-164

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 67A04-1606-DR-1312 | March 3, 2017 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Caleb Riggen (“Father”) and Tammy Riggen (“Mother”) were once married, 

and have one child between them (“Child”). After the marriage was dissolved, 

Father petitioned to modify custody of Child. The trial court initially granted 

Father’s petition. Subsequently, the trial court granted Mother’s motion to 

correct error, thereby denying Father’s petition. Father now appeals, raising 

two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court abused 

its discretion in granting Mother’s motion to correct error.

[2] We reverse and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In 2014, Father’s and Mother’s marriage was dissolved, with Mother having 

physical custody of Child. Father later petitioned to modify custody. The trial 

court held a hearing on Father’s petition, during which it heard testimony from 

Child’s guardian ad litem (the “GAL”) and took judicial notice of the GAL’s 

report. On February 16, 2016, the trial court granted Father’s petition.

[4] On March 2, 2016, Mother filed a motion to correct error and to stay the order. 

Mother alleged that the trial court erred in making its findings, and contended 

that there was insufficient evidence supporting the order. Mother also argued 

that “the GAL’s report was so flawed it should carry little if any weight” (App. 

Vol. II at 30), and suggested that the GAL further investigate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 67A04-1606-DR-1312 | March 3, 2017 Page 3 of 6

[5] The trial court entered a stay of its order, set a hearing on Mother’s motion to 

correct error, and requested that the GAL conduct further investigation. The 

GAL complied and filed a supplemental report, after which the trial court held 

a hearing on Mother’s motion. Following the hearing, the trial court entered an 

order granting Mother’s motion and denying Father’s petition. The order did 

not provide a reason for granting Mother’s motion.

[6] This appeal ensued.

Standard of Review

[7] At the outset, we note that Mother has not filed a brief. When an appellee fails 

to submit a brief, we need not undertake the burden of developing an argument 

on the appellee’s behalf. Front Row Motors, LLC v. Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753, 758 

(Ind. 2014). Instead, “we will reverse the trial court’s judgment if the 

appellant’s brief presents a case of prima facie error.” Trinity Homes, LLC v. 

Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006). Prima facie error in this context is 

defined as, “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

[8] Father appeals from the grant of Mother’s motion to correct error. We review a 

trial court’s ruling on a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion. 

Santelli v. Rahmatullah, 993 N.E.2d 167, 173 (Ind. 2013). In so doing, we afford 

the trial court’s decision “a strong presumption of correctness.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (citing Walker v. Pullen, 943 N.E.2d 349, 351 (Ind. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 67A04-1606-DR-1312 | March 3, 2017 Page 4 of 6

2011)). However, by granting Mother’s motion to correct error, the trial court 

effectively denied Father’s petition to modify custody. Thus, the context and 

circumstances of the underlying petition are relevant to our review.

[9] Here, Father petitioned to modify a custody order. Under Indiana Code 

section 31-17-2-21, a court may not modify a child custody order unless (1) 

modification is in “the best interests of the child” and (2) there is a “substantial 

change” in one of several factors that a court may consider in initially 

determining custody. The party seeking modification of a custody order “bears 

the burden of demonstrating [that] the existing custody should be altered.” 

Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016). This “‘more stringent 

standard’ is required to support a change in custody”—as opposed to an initial 

custody determination—“because ‘permanence and stability are considered best 

for the welfare and happiness of the child.’” Id. (quoting Lamb v. Wenning, 600 

N.E.2d 96, 98 (Ind. 1992)). Moreover, “there is a well-established preference in 

Indiana ‘for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law 

matters.’” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. 1993). 

“Appellate judges are not to reweigh the evidence nor reassess witness 

credibility, and the evidence should be viewed most favorably to the judgment.” 

Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. 2011).

[10] Additionally, because the grant of Mother’s motion to correct error effectively 

denied Father’s petition to modify the custody order, Father appeals from a 

negative judgment. On appeal from a negative judgment, we do not reverse the 

judgment of the trial court unless it is contrary to law. Comm'r, Dep't of Envtl. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 67A04-1606-DR-1312 | March 3, 2017 Page 5 of 6

Mgmt. v. RLG, Inc., 755 N.E.2d 556, 559 (Ind. 2001). We will reverse the 

judgment only if the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial court 

reached the opposite conclusion. Id.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Father contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Mother’s 

motion to correct error because the trial court “failed to articulate any reasons 

whatsoever for why it granted Mother’s motion.”1 (Appellant’s Br. at 12.) Trial 

Rule 59(J) provides that whenever a court grants relief on a motion to correct 

error, the court “shall specify the general reasons” for granting relief. We note 

that the trial court’s obligation to specify “general reasons” under Trial Rule 

59(J) is not the same as the trial court’s obligation to enter “special findings” 

when it sets aside a jury verdict and orders a new trial. See T.R. 59(J).

[12] Here, the trial court provided no explanation for its decision to grant corrective 

relief, contrary to Trial Rule 59(J). Were this case before us with an appellee’s 

 

1

Father raises other issues, but they are not dispositive. One challenge is to the form of Mother’s motion. 

Father contends that because Mother anticipated a supplemental GAL report, the motion was based on 

evidence outside the record and required an affidavit under Trial Rule 59(H). We disagree because Mother 

did not introduce evidence through the motion itself. Father also argues that the trial court improperly 

admitted evidence, but Father did not object to the admission of the evidence and has therefore waived this 

argument. See Bogner v. Bogner, 29 N.E.3d 733, 740 (Ind. 2015) (noting the “general principle that objections 

not contemporaneously raised are waived”). Last, Father argues that the evidence was sufficient to support 

the trial court’s initial order. To the extent Father is arguing that the trial court impermissibly changed its 

mind after entry of judgment, we note that the trial court was entitled to do so. See Hubbard v. Hubbard, 690 

N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (“Trial Rule 59 . . . provides the court, on its own motion to correct 

error or that of any party, the ability to alter, amend, modify or even vacate its decision following the entry of 

final judgment.”). To the extent Father is challenging the denial of his petition, we do not reach this 

argument because our resolution of the dispositive issue leads us to vacate the trial court’s order and remand.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 67A04-1606-DR-1312 | March 3, 2017 Page 6 of 6

brief, we might conclude that the error was harmless. See Pickett v. Pickett, 470 

N.E.2d 751, 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (determining that the trial court’s failure 

to specify “general reasons” under Trial Rule 59(J) was harmless error). 

However, Father has directed us to prima facie error. Under these 

circumstances, we are constrained in our review and therefore vacate the trial 

court’s order granting Mother’s motion to correct error. On remand, we 

instruct the trial court, when considering the motion to correct error, to comply

with Trial Rule 59.

Conclusion

[13] The trial court abused its discretion when it granted Mother’s motion to correct 

error without providing a reason for doing so, contrary to Trial Rule 59(J).

[14] Reversed and remanded.

Najam, J., and May, J., concur.