Court Opinion

ID: 9542094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:31:10.186954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:32.533044
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
The right to a change of venue is a substantive right. It is partially rooted in the State Constitution’s pledge of a fair trial. It is a right which belongs equally to every party to an action. TR. 76(1). The job of this Court is to fashion a fair procedure for the implementation of the right. In deciding what is fair, we can certainly fashion the procedures so as to discourage the use of the right solely for delay or other improper purpose, where such is clearly the case. However, in so doing we should not extinguish the right to an automatic change of venue for an entire class of parties, under the guise of regulating its legitimate use and setting procedures for its implementation, as the majority opinion surely does in this case. This holding cuts off that right of new parties brought into an action by third party complaint filed pursuant to TR. 14, if such third party complaint is filed after the defendant has filed his answer. The newly arrived party, joined pursuant to TR. 18 or TR. 19 after answer is likewise divested of the right.
I would hold in this case, as such would be clearly sufficient here, that the filing of a counterclaim, simultaneously with the filing of the answer, does not first close the issues on the merits, but that such issues remain open until the reply to the counterclaim, made mandatory by the provisions of TR. 7, has been filed. This resolution is consonant with our holding in State ex rel. Hatt v. Vanderburgh Probate Court (1966), 247 Ind. 517, 219 N. E. 2d 437. There we held that the issues are first closed on the merits within the meaning of that phrase in our change of venue rule, when the pleadings have reached such a state that “the case could go to trial.” In the case before us, there is no point in time prior to the filing of the *509reply to the counterclaim at which the case could go to trial. I therefore consider the motion for change of venue filed two weeks prior to the filing of the reply to he timefy filed. The trial judge should be required to grant that change of venue. I therefore vote to make the temporary writ permanent.
Note. — Reported in 307 N. E. 2d 70.