Court Opinion

ID: 9733857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:19:01.889331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:36.376159
License: Public Domain

*208BROOK, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur in the conclusion that the trial court erroneously granted Jackson's motion for relief from judgment under Trial Rule 60(B). I write separately, however, to offer the following rationale as to why the trial court's failure to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 2.7(B)(2) does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief as contemplated by Trial Rule 60(B)(8).
Simply put, this is a classic case of invited error. Jackson claims that he received no notice of the mediation, but this claim is meritless given his attorney's appearance at the proceeding. See Krick v. Farmers and Merch. Bank of Boswell, 151 Ind.App. 7, 17, 279 N.E.2d 254, 260 (1972) ("Notice to the attorney is notice to the client."), trans. denied. Thus, the consequences of any error arising from Jackson's failure to appear lie squarely at his doorstep, and he may not seek refuge therefrom under Trial Rule 60(B)(8). Cf. Smith v. McLeod Distributing, Inc., 744 N.E.2d 459, 466 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) ("A party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct. Invited error is not subject to review by this court.") (citation omitted); Koval v. Simon Telelect, Inc., 693 N.E.2d 1299, 1307 (Ind. 1998) ("In sum, the rule that an attorney has the inherent power to bind the client to an in court judgment applies to proceedings governed by the ADR rules in which the parties are ordered, required by the rule, or agree to appear through authorized representatives."); see also Slaney v. Int'l Amateur Athletic Fed'n, 244 F.3d 580, 591 (7th Cir.2001) ("Our judicial system is not meant to provide a second bite at the apple for those who have sought adjudication of their disputes in other forums and are not content with the resolution they have received."), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 69, 151 LEd.2d 35 (2001).1

. Although Jackson purportedly "repudiate[d] and renounce[d]" the terms of the mediation agreement immediately upon being advised thereof by counsel, it is interesting to note that he took no steps to set aside the agreement until after the Appellants took steps to enforce it.