Court Opinion

ID: 9735273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:07:40.523572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:56.491565
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
dissenting
I respectfully dissent. Unlike the circumstances presented in Boostrom v. Bach, 622 N.E.2d 175 (Ind.1993) as discussed in the majority opinion, the Wil-burns submitted their filing fee along with the complaint. Both were received by the court clerk and the complaint was file-marked February 16, 1999, which was within the timé period prescribed by the statute of limitations. Additionally, I would note that there is no language in T.R. 31 commanding that the summons be filed prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Moreover, it is well-known that summonses are printed and maintained in the county clerk’s office. While attorneys may have a private “stock” of such forms, there is no requirement under the trial rules that this document must be prepared by the party initiating the action. As a result, it is my view that the Wilburns filed their complaint within the time period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations and the cause of action commenced at that time. See Taylor v. Lewis, 577 N.E.2d 986, 989 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied (T.R. 3 requires only the filing of a complaint to commence the action and to toll the statute of limitations). Thus, the motion to dismiss was properly denied and I vote to affirm the judgment of the trial court.

. "A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court...."