Court Opinion

ID: 9726040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:28:46.062591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:23.087447
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. However, I disagree with the analysis of Ind. Trial Rule 72(E). In pertinent part, the rule provides:
When the mailing of a copy of the entry by the Clerk is not evidenced by a note made by the Clerk upon the Chronological Case Summary, the Court, upon application for good cause shown, may grant an extension of any time limitation within which to contest such ruling, order or judgment to any party who was without actual knowledge, or who relied upon incorrect representations by Court personnel. Such extension shall commence when the party first obtained actual knowledge and not exceed the original time limitation.
T.R. 72(E).
While the rule does allow a trial court to extend the time period for the filing of a praecipe to initiate an appeal, the circumstances are narrowly drawn. See Lodge of Wabash, Ltd. v. Sullivan, 654 N.E.2d 40, 42-43 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). Moreover, the circumstances in the present case are specifically excluded within the text of T.R. 72(E). A party with actual knowledge of a ruling may not rely upon the provision for an extension of time. Here, the party received actual notice. Thus, I agree that Vaughn is not entitled to relief.