Court Opinion

ID: 9738507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:55:07.500929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.598770
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Result.
Givan, C.J.
I feel the rulings in the cases cited in the majority opinion on page 301, starting with State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413, 296 N.E.2d 120, are correct, not in point in the case at bar and should not be disturbed. I think we should adhere to the rule that any time a judgment is substantially modified no appeal may be taken from that judgment unless a motion to correct errors is filed.
I do agree with the proposition that when a motion to correct errors is filed and sustained by the trial court it should not be necessary for the losing party to file a new motion to correct errors at that time. I do not think the holding in Deprez and subsequent cases requires that. In such an instance certainly an understandable appeal may be predicated upon the trial court’s granting of the motion to correct errors.
However in situations where a motion to correct errors is filed, and in response thereto the trial court makes extensive modifications of its judgment, I would hold it necessary to file a subsequent motion for new trial addressed to the new judgment.
I further disagree with the summary set forth in the majority opinion. In a departure from the issues of the case at bar the majority opinion summary sets forth new rules of *310procedure concerning motions to correct error. I believe it is unfair to the practicing bar for this Court to purport to make procedural rule changes in written opinions. To engage in this practice leaves the rules unreliable and requires the practitioner to not only read the rules but to search through the various cases to determine whether or not the rule has been modified by case law. If the rule changes set out in the majority summary are to be made they should be made by amendment of the present rules and should not be set forth in an opinion of this Court.
For the foregoing reasons I feel compelled to concur in the result only in this case.
Pivarnik, J., concurs.
NOTE. — Reported at 375 N.E.2d 592.