Court Opinion

ID: 9738105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:42:46.706813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.750655
License: Public Domain

. GARRARD, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority but believe a word of amplification may be helpful to the reader concerning our application of Bolerjack v. Forsythe (1984), Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 1126 and question of collateral attack.
While the majority is correct in its application of the rule to the facts before us, its statement that "where the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction a collateral attack is permissible," begs the question in the broader context. Some judgments entered without jurisdiction are void and may be collaterally attacked. Others are merely voidable and must be directly attacked.
We often distinguish between the two where subject matter jurisdiction is involved by distinguishing between a general want of jurisdiction and what we have persisted in referring to as jurisdiction of the particular case. In the latter instance, most of the decisions consider the judgment merely voidable.
Our decisions have, also, characterized the distinction vis-a-vis collateral attack from another perspective. Thus, it has been said that it is where the lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record that the judgment may be collaterally attacked. Cooper v. Morris (1986), 210 Ind. 162, 200 N.E. 222; Brindle v. Anglin (1973), 156 Ind.App. 219, 295 N.E.2d 860.
The jurisdictional defect in Polerjack consisted of the court's lack of authority to render the particular relief granted. That same defect is present here, and such defects are apparent on the face of the record. They render the judgment or that defective portion of the judgment void.