Court Opinion

ID: 9743344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:31:27.955564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:40.684093
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Chief Judge,
concurring.
Although it seems to me that requiring a new trial to correct an obvious mathematical error leads to a waste of time and resources for the courts, the parties, and counsel, I reluctantly agree that under the provisions of IND.CODE § 34-4-83-9, and the procedural posture of this case, such a result is inescapable.
Ind. Trial Rule 60(A) clearly was not the proper vehicle for correction of the error. Under the factual circumstances of this case, I would like to believe that a TR. 59 motion to correct errors would have enabled the court to make the correction. However, a T.R. 60 motion cannot be treated as a TR. 59 motion. Siebert Oxidermo, Inc. v. Shields (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 332, 337. Neither do I believe the authority granted to us by Ind.App.Rule 15(N)(8) to correct a judgment subject to correction grants us the power to correct the jury's mathematical error. We are reviewing the trial judge's attempted correction of the jury's error. Such is not a judgment subject to correction by us.
Therefore, I concur.