Court Opinion

ID: 9523624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:44:48.279957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:54.774773
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Sullivan, J.
The chronology and sequence of the crucial procedural steps followed in this case are virtually identical to those in Farmers Bank v. Moore (1973), 155 Ind. App. 92, 291 N.E.2d 566, wherein I dissented from a dismissal of that appeal. I would here reiterate what was said in that dissent but would append thereto the observation that AP. Rule 14(B) seems to support my belief that AP. Rule 2(A) is not a jurisdictional rule in the sense that an otherwise timely appeal must be dismissed if the praecipe has not been requested within thirty (30) days of the ruling on a Motion to Correct Error.
AP. Rule 14(B) provides that no extension of time for the filing of a record of proceedings will be granted unless the praecipe has been filed within the period provided by AP. 2(A). If failure to timely file a praecipe constitutes irretrievable waiver of the right to appeal and is truly jurisdic*464tional, the provision of AP. 14(B) is totally unnecessary and redundant. The clear implication of AP. 14(B) is, at least in my view, that notwithstanding failure to file a praecipe for the record within thirty (30) days, and the appellate tribunal within its discretion permits it, an appeal may be considered upon a record of proceedings filed within ninety (90) days of the ruling upon the Motion to Correct Error. I would overrule the Motion to Dismiss.
Note. — Reported at 297 N.E.2d 491.