Court Opinion

ID: 9541243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:23:51.644513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:03.105041
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent because this Court does not have jurisdiction of this appeal. The Majority has acknowledged:
“At the outset it must be noted that appellant filed his motion to correct errors on the sixty-first day following the judgment in his hearing. Having filed his motion to correct errors late, he has failed to comply with Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 59(C). Failure to file a timely motion to correct errors preserves no error for review by this Court.”
Page 716. Yet, the Majority Opinion assumes jurisdiction of this appeal and affirms the judgment of the trial court. The Indiana Supreme Court Rules must apply to everyone equally. This includes the Indiana Court of Appeals. We are bound to follow the limitations of our jurisdiction. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 59(C) provides:
“Time for filing: Service on judge. A motion to correct error shall be filed not later than sixty [60] days after the entry of a final judgment or an appealable final order. A copy of the motion to correct error shall be served, when filed, upon the judge before whom the case is pending pursuant to Trial Rule 5.”
As the Majority so aptly points out: “Failure to file a timely motion to correct errors preserves no error for review by this Court. Kelsey v. Nagy (1980), Ind.App., 410 N.E.2d 1333; White v. Livengood (1979), Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 696.” Page 716.
I dissent because the Majority Opinion completely ignores the Indiana Supreme Court Rules in affirming the judgment of the trial court. Instead of affirming the judgment of the trial court, it should have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Majority can not create jurisdiction where none exists merely to expedite the disposition of what may be another appeal. These types of short-cuts are outside the Indiana Supreme Court Rules which bind the judiciary at all levels. If it were otherwise, the orderly procedure of litigation which assures an end to litigation at some point would be lost.
Chief Justice Richard M. Givan made this point quite clear in State of Indiana v. Marion County Criminal Court, Division Three (1978), 269 Ind. 46, 378 N.E.2d 833. He wrote:
“This action was beyond the authority to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to TR. 59. In order to effectuate some semblance of order in our judicial process there must be an end to litigation. Were we to hold that the respondent had jurisdiction to enter this order on the date entered, a trial court’s jurisdiction over matters formerly litigated in that court would never terminate. Thus once the time had passed for a motion to correct errors to be filed, and a ruling had been made on such motion, the trial court had jurisdiction to act under TR. 59 only to the extent of considering timely filed motions or belated motions ruled proper under PC. 2.”
378 N.E.2d at 834.
Since this Court does not have jurisdiction of this appeal, it cannot affirm the judgment of the trial court and in dicta, decide the issues submitted. This Court has *719no choice but to dismiss this appeal.1 Also see Hepp v. Hammer (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 735.

. “Although the distinction between a motion to dismiss and a motion to affirm has been clouded by decisions of both our appeal courts in recent years, there is basically a clear distinction between the two.
“A motion to dismiss is the appropriate remedy when the deficiency in the appeal is one which relates to the jurisdiction of the court or to the appellant’s right to appeal. While a motion to affirm is the appropriate remedy where the deficiency relates only to some technical or procedural matter which precludes an effective consideration of the appeal on the merits, such as an ineffective brief, or no appellant’s brief, or the omission of the transcript of the evidence from the transcript when the questions raised in the appeal pertain to the sufficiency of the evidence.
⅜: # sfc ⅝ ⅜ *
“However, if the distinction is clear as to whether the defect is jurisdictional or merely procedural, then a single motion to dismiss or to affirm the judgment would be the appropriate procedure and the alternative motion should not be used.”
i A. Bobbitt, Indiana Appellate Practice and Procedure, 532, § 4.