Opinion ID: 2232232
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Remedy for Unaddressed Grounds

Text: The plaintiffs contend that, as to the unaddressed specifications of error in their motion to correct error, they are entitled to a trial court ruling and an opportunity to appeal therefrom. The defendant argues that all specified errors were in effect denied pursuant to Ind.Trial Rule 53.3 [1] and that the plaintiffs failed thereafter to timely initiate an appeal or cross appeal. The Court of Appeals rejected the application of T.R. 53.3, noting that once the judge was satisfied that a new trial was merited, no reason existed to rule on the remaining specifications of error or to state additional reasons for ordering a new trial. This parallels the practice in courts of appeal, where rulings are not required on additional issues once reversible error is found. The Court of Appeals determined, [W]e do not find all specified errors are automatically deemed denied pursuant to T.R. 53.3 where a new trial is granted on one or more, but not all, issues by the trial court. Riggs, 595 N.E.2d at 270. The Court of Appeals thus found that there was never a ruling on the unaddressed issues rendered moot by the trial court's order for a new trial. The defendant presents no authority to support his contention that the plaintiffs should be required to have filed a cross appeal when the defendant appealed the trial court's grant of a new trial. [2] The Court of Appeals does not expressly discuss the cross appeal issue but observes by footnote that in Conway v. Chemical Leaman Tanklines, Inc. (5th Cir.1981), 644 F.2d 1059, 1062, the federal circuit court held that where a trial court grants a new trial on only one of two grounds urged and the appellate court holds the first ground deficient, plaintiffs do not abandon their second ground for a new trial by not taking a cross appeal at the time the defendants appeal from the judgment. Riggs, 595 N.E.2d at 271 n. 1. When a trial court makes no ruling on grounds alleged in a motion to correct error but rendered moot by the order granting a new trial, there is no basis to allege cross error. Upon remand following appellate reversal of the grant of new trial, the plaintiffs-appellants were entitled to obtain a ruling upon the unaddressed specifications of error asserted in their original motion to correct error.