Court Opinion

ID: 9717466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:03:57.885045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.302105
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The majority accurately recites the recent history of amendments to the special statute of limitations for incompetent or incapacitated persons. I draw a different inference from this history. The former statute specifically extended the statute of limitations for children until 180 days after their eighteenth birthday. It also provided a 180-day extension for persons suffering traditional incapacities such as mental illness. In adopting the new statute, the General Assembly left out reference to persons under the age of eighteen and expanded the list of persons with traditional inca-pacities.
The effect of this deletion seems pretty straightforward. I conclude that it means children must file their actions within the statute of limitations by their next friend, just as Sara Page has filed this case for Sandra Widawski. Thus, I further conclude that this action was not timely filed.
*163Quite aside from the outcome in this case, I note that the majority has elected to declare that “other incapacity” means or includes “minors.” Because the majority has chosen to read this particular word into the statute, we will necessarily need to face the question of who are “minors” under Indiana law. Many might assume that eighteen is the age of majority, but I can find no general definition of “minor” in the Indiana Code. The first definition I can find, appearing in the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act at Ind.Code Ann. § 30-2-8.5-10 (West Supp.1993) defines a minor as one who is less than twenty-one years old.