Court Opinion

ID: 9803670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 15:51:21.83732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:09.395628
License: Public Domain

DARDEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.' I do not agree with the majority’s holding that the Walterses’ amended motion to correct error was a repetitive motion for the purposes of Indiana Trial 53.4, which was designed to prevent delay through the filing of repetitive motions. See Stephens v. Irvin, 734 N.E.2d 1133, 1134 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied.
The Walterses filed both of their motions to correct error well within the time period to do so; filed the amended motion to correct error only three days after filing the original motion; and filed the May 23 motion prior to receiving notice that the trial court had denied the May 20 motion. The Walterses clearly did not file the May 23 motion in an effort to extend the time for filing their notice of appeal. Accordingly, I do not believe that the interest of justice is served by treating the May 23 motion as a repetitive motion. I therefore would review this case on the merits.