Court Opinion

ID: 9519664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:21:46.004643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:35.693786
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Robertson, C.J.
While agreeing with the majority opinion in this case I feel that a strong caveat should be made to the bench and bar requiring actual compliance with that portion of Ind. Rules of Trial Procedure 54(B) which explicitly requires (1) determination that there is no just reason for delay, and (2) expressly directs the entry of judgment.
Although this court has relied upon Ind. Rules of App. Procedure 4(E) on occasion to bypass the express requirements of TR. 54(B) attorneys should not rely upon this practice in the future for two reasons. First, there is rarely a valid reason to ignore an express requirement of the trial rules. Second, it is foreseeable that at some time there will be a party litigant who will be sorely troubled by the failure to put a judgment in final form prior to appealing. The better practice requires following the appropriate rules of procedure. The failure to do so should not be a cause of surprise at the resulting delays and problems arising therefrom.
Note.—Reported at 329 N.E.2d 45.