Court Opinion

ID: 9862283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:05:53.189245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:57.950264
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part
Hunter, J.
I concur with the majority opinion that the taking of an appeal should not preclude a party from pursuing its remedies under Ind. R. Tr. P. 60(B) ; however, I am in disagreement as to the procedure to be followed. In selecting the particular method that it did, the majority chooses to reject a procedure used by a majority of the federal courts for one that has been referred to as an anomaly by legal commentators. (WRIGHT AND A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2878 at 263-264.)
The procedure which I would adopt is similar to that followed in the majority of the federal courts:
1. The movant would file a motion for relief with the trial court. Simultaneously a certified copy is sent to the court *90of appellate jurisdiction. Upon receipt of that motion, the appeal is held in abeyance and further jurisdiction in the pending matter is extended to the trial court as a fact-finder.
2. Notification by the trial court of its determination.
(a) If the trial court intends to grant the motion, it notifies the court of appellate jurisdiction which would remand the appeal to the trial court for granting.
(b) If the trial court determines to deny the motion, it may do so without remand from the court of appellate jurisdiction. If the moving party desires, it may appeal the denial of its motion and said ruling is merged into the appeal on the merits.
The above procedure has been recognized as promoting true judicial economy. See: HARVEY, RULES AND RULINGS FOR THE TRIAL LAWYER, 18 RES GESTAE 21 (November 1974) ; Washington v. Board of Education School District 89, (7th Cir. 1974) 498 F. 2d 11; Wright, supra, Ryan v. U.S. Lines Co., (C.A. 2d, 1962) 303 F.2d 430, 434. It eliminates the further burdening of the appellate system with a preliminary review before remanding to the trial court for a ruling on the merits of the motion. This duplication of judicial effort is both unnecesary and undesirable.
I would therefore grant transfer and adopt the procedure set forth in this opinion.
Note. — Reported at 368 N.E.2d 235.