Court Opinion

ID: 9722614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:41:57.42701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:37.871372
License: Public Domain

DARDEN, Judge,
concurring in result.
This court must decide a case on the record which is before the court, and cannot speculate as to the actual facts of a ease. Zapffe v. Srbeny (1992), Ind.App., 587 N.E.2d 177, 180, reh’g denied, trans. denied. It is the appellant’s duty to ensure that an adequate record is presented for review of issues raised. Mid-West Federal Savings Bank v. Epperson (1991), Ind.App., 579 N.E.2d 124, 125. reh’g denied, reh’g denied.
Carson alleges that Sanders’ attorney requested an October 25, 1993, trial date at a July 23,1993, pre-trial conference.1 Sanders’ attorney withdrew on October 12, 1993, and Sanders was not present at the October 25 trial. The trial court dismissed Sanders’ complaint and awarded judgment for $25,-000.00 against him on Carson’s counterclaim. Sanders, acting pro se, moved to set aside the judgment. When that motion was denied, Sanders obtained the services of an attorney. Sanders then filed a motion to correct error, alleging, among other things, that he was not notified of the October 25 trial date.2 This motion was denied as well. Sanders now argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief from the involuntary dismissal of his complaint and from judgment against him on Carson’s counterclaim.
Here, the hearings on Sanders’ motion to set aside the judgment and motion to correct error were unrecorded, and the record is silent as to the proceedings. Sanders could have provided this court with a “statement of the evidence of [these] proceedings from the best available means, including his recollection.” Ind.Appellate Rule 7.2(A)(3)(c). App.R. 7.2(A)(3)(c) further states as follows:
“If submitted contemporaneously with the matter complained of, the statement may be settled and approved by the trial court. If submitted thereafter, the statement shall be served on other parties who may serve objections or prepare amendments thereto within ten (10) days after service. The statement and any objections or prepared amendments shall be submitted to *1146the trial court for settlement and approval and as settled and approved shall become a part of the record and be included by the clerk of the trial court in the record.”
Because Sanders failed to provide this court with an adequate record for review of the issues which he raised, I concur in affirming the trial court,

. The trial was previously scheduled for August 2, 1993.

. Sanders’ motion to correct error states in pertinent part as follows:
"14. Among the uncorrected errors of law mandating the vacation of the default judgment are the following.
a. Cunningham failed to comply with Local Rule 3(B) in giving notice of her withdrawal.
b. Carson failed to timely pay transfer fees under Local Rule 5(B), and this court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant the default judgment.
c. This cause was not assigned for trial in conformity with Local Rule 8. Carson failed to file and serve a certificate of readiness that would have alerted Sanders of the pending trial date.
d. No notice or order was ever served upon Sanders advising him of this trial date. In fact, the docket sheet and the court’s file in this matter do not reflect any scheduled trial date for October 25, 1993.
e. Both parties in this action demanded a jury trial. Damages assessed in the default judgment, even if the judgment is proper, had to be assessed by a jury. Sanders did not waive his right to trial by jury under Ind.Trial Rule 38(D).
f. Carson failed to give notice of her demand for default as required by Ind.Trial Rule 55(B). Sanders appeared in this action, and he was entitled to written notice of the application for judgment at least three days before the hearing on the application." (R. at 5-6).