Court Opinion

ID: 9541389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:25:01.835116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:49.079664
License: Public Domain

OPINION
FRIEDLANDER, Judge.
Linda Ostertag appeals the amended decree of dissolution of marriage entered by the trial court on April 20, 2000. She challenges the court's calculation of child support to be paid by Michael Ostertag and several aspects of the trial court's valuation and division of marital assets. Michael, however, asserts that Linda's appeal is untimely and must be dismissed.
We dismiss.
The record reveals that the original decree of dissolution was entered on September 10, 1999. Linda filed a timely motion to correct error. Following a hearing, which was rescheduled several times, the trial court granted Linda's motion to correct in part and entered an amended de-eree on April 20, 2000. Thereafter, on May 12, Michael filed a motion to correct error. On May 24, the trial court reset the original hearing date of June 1 to June 20. The entry on May 24 is the last reference in the record to Michael's motion to correct error, and the record is silent as to what occurred, if anything, on June 20.
After the May 24 entry, the chronological case summary reveals the following events:
5/26/00 Linda files petition for citation and rule to show cause. Hearing set for June 20, 2000.
7/81/00 Michael files motion to reassign *687cause for hearing.1 Order granted and hearing set for October 17, 2000.
10/3/00 Michael files motion for writ of assistance and possession of personal property.
10/9/00 Linda files response to motion for writ for assistance and possession of personal property.2
10/17/00 Hearing held on petitions for rule to show cause and upon writ for assistance to retrieve personal property.
10/28/00 Praecipe filed by Linda.
Michael challenges our jurisdiction to hear this appeal and directs us to the apparent void in the record regarding his motion to correct error. Despite Michael's challenges, Linda failed to file a reply brief and failed to supplement the record or direct us to portions of the record that would demonstrate her appeal is timely.
Ind. Trial Rule 53.3(A)3 provides the following time limitation for ruling on a motion to correct error:
In the event a court fails for forty-five (45) days to set a Motion to Correct Error for hearing, or fails to rule on a Motion to Correct Error within thirty (80) days after it was heard or forty-five (45) days after it was filed, if no hearing is required, the pending Motion to Correct Error shall be deemed denied. Any appeal shall be initiated by filing the praecipe under Appellate Rule 2(A) within thirty (80) days after the Motion to Correct Error is deemed denied.
Thus, a timely appeal is initiated when the praecipe is filed within thirty days after the trial court's ruling on a motion to correct error or thirty days after such motion is deemed denied. Ind. Appellate Rule 2(A). "Failure to timely file the praccipe is a jurisdictional matter requiring dismissal of the appeal." Johnson v. Johnson County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 732 N.E.2d 865, 866 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).
Here, the record does not reveal what occurred with respect to Michael's motion to correct error after the hearing was rescheduled on May 24, 2000. The record simply reveals that a hearing on the motion was scheduled for June 20. If the hearing was held on that date, then the motion would have been deemed denied on July 20, and Linda's appeal would be untimely. On the other hand, the hearing may have been canceled anytime between May 24 and June 20. On this record, we have no means of determining whether the hearing was rescheduled within forty-five days. Further, in her Statement of the Case, Linda claims that the hearing on the motion to correct error was continued to October 17. The record reveals, however, that the motion to correct error was not addressed during the October 17 hearing.
In sum, we conclude that Linda has failed to demonstrate that she timely filed her praecipe, and we cannot infer our own jurisdiction on such a slender record. See Wesley v. State, 696 N.E.2d 882, 883 (Ind. Ct.App.1998) ("burden was on [appellant] to show by the record on appeal that he had filed a praecipe within the time allowed") (citing Farmers Loan & Trust Co. of Tipton v. Manning, 142 Ind.App. 519, 528, 286 N.E.2d 52, 55 (1968) ("failure to meet this burden cannot be cured by in*688dulging in inferences or presumptions in favor of the appellant"). Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.
Dismissed.
RILEY, J., concurs.
SULLIVAN, J., dissents with opinion.

. This motion is not included in the record.

. In this response, Linda noted that her petition for contempt citation was set for hearing on October 17 and requested the court to set Michael's motion for writ of assistance and possession of personal property for hearing at the same time. She made no mention of a hearing on Michael's motion to correct error.

. Rules cited herein refer to the former versions that were effective until January 1, 2001.