Court Opinion

ID: 9518725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:00:33.769065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:35.913462
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
dissenting
It is not within the prerogative of this court to overrule a clear and unmistakable ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court. Yet, the majority, here, has in effect done so.
In Fort Wayne International Airport v. Wilburn (2000) Ind.App., 723 N.E.2d 967, trams. denied, we noted that Boostrom v. Bach (1993) Ind., 622 N.E.2d 175, cert. denied (1994) 513 U.S. 928, 115 S.Ct. 318, 130 L.Ed.2d 279, involved a small claims matter. We also noted that under Small Claims Rule 83(A) the complaint, ie. the "notice of claim" is "considered to be the summons." Wilburn, supra at 969 n. 1. Therefore, in small claims litigation the plaintiff is not required to tender a separate summons to the court for issuance by the Clerk.
Nevertheless, our Supreme Court clearly and unmistakably used terminology applicable to commencement of a suit under the Rules of Trial Procedure. In doing so, it left no doubt that in normal civil litigation the "documents necessary to commencement of a suit: the complaint, the summons, and the fee" must all be filed. Boostrom, supra, 622 N.E.2d at 177 n. 2 (emphasis supplied).
*782Without the tender of a summons to the court for issuance, the suit was not commenced. The statute of limitations expired before the suit was commenced. Unless and until our Supreme Court overturns or modifies the Boostrom decision,5 it remains the law and as we held in Wilburn, we are obligated to follow it notwithstanding Trial Rule 3.
I would affirm the judgment of dismissal.

. In considering the transfer petition in Wi/-burn, our Supreme Court had an opportunity to revisit Boostrom but chose not to do so.