Court Opinion

ID: 9728244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:02:59.004802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.078575
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I enthusiastically join my colleagues in the decision affirming reinstatement of a case prematurely terminated as a result of the failure of a court or court clerk to give notice to parties My concurrence, however, does not rest upon the tenuous distinction drawn between the application of T.R. 72(D) to cases involving an attempt to perfect an appeal and it's non-application in the situation presented here. The fact remains that in either situation the party litigant is prejudiced by the failure of the court or the court clerk to give notice of "a ruling upon a motion, an order or judgment ...." (TR. 72(D)). It is of no moment that the prejudice is the denial of the opportunity to appellate review as opposed to one's opportunity to have a trial upon the merits.
In addition, I disassociate myself from those portions of the majority opinion which adhere to the premise that an attorney who does not regularly check court records is necessarily neglectful. See McIlwain v. Simmons (2d Dist.1983) Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 430 at 433 (dissenting opinion); Brendonwood Common v. Kahlenbeck (2d Dist.1981) Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 1335 at 1337 (dissenting opinion).