Opinion ID: 852883
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of Cross-claim

Text: The Gills argue that their cross-claim of May 9, 2000, while initially filed without leave of court, nevertheless became valid when explicitly authorized by the trial court order on February 2, 2001, and that the date their cross-claim was filed thus related back to May 9, 2000, when originally filed and served upon the cross-defendants. Pollerts and Penn-America argue (a) that because the Gills' cross-claim was neither filed with their answer nor with court permission, it is a nullity, and (b) that it cannot relate back as an amended pleading. In Boyd, our Court of Appeals held that a cross-claim must be asserted in an answer, that it is not a pleading itself, and that a defendant can assert a cross-claim against a co-defendant by amending his answer only if leave of court is granted pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 15(A). 562 N.E.2d at 460. Finding that the record did not reflect any order that allowed Boyd to file the cross-claim, the court held it was a nullity. As applied to the present case, Trial Rule 15(A) provides in relevant part that a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be given when justice so requires.  (emphasis added.) At all times relevant to the present case, Trial Rule 15(C) provided in relevant part: [2] Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment: (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits; and (2) knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him. Id. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from those in Boyd. Although not filed contemporaneously with the cross-claim, Centennial and the Gills did subsequently file a motion requesting permission to file their cross-claim and asking that their cross-claim of May 9, 2000 be allowed. Appellants' Appendix at 203. The trial court granted the motion, ordering that said cross-claim is authorized and permission is given by the Court for that cross-claim to be filed. Id. at 205. This is unlike Boyd, where the court noted the absence of any order in the record granting leave to file the cross-claim. 562 N.E.2d at 460. We therefore decline to find that the filing of the cross-claim in the present case was a procedural non-entity.