Ball State Univ. v. Irons

• Decision Date: 18 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 45S03–1503–DR–134.,45S03–1503–DR–134.
• Parties: BALL STATE UNIVERSITY, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Jennifer IRONS, Appellee (Plaintiff below). In re the Marriage of Jennifer Irons, Wife (Plaintiff below), and Scott Irons, Husband (Defendant below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

27 N.E.3d 717

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY, Appellant (Defendant below)

v.Jennifer IRONS, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

In re the Marriage of Jennifer Irons, Wife (Plaintiff below)

and

Scott Irons, Husband (Defendant below).

No. 45S03–1503–DR–134.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 18, 2015.

James R. Williams, Matthew L. Kelsey, Muncie, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Maureen B. Moss, Jane Dall Wilson, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Supporting Ball State University's Petition to Transfer.

Adam J. Sedia, Rubino, Ruman, Crosmer & Polen, Dyer, IN, Sandra Moreno Garcia, Lake Station, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

Debra Lyn Dubovich, Family Law and Juvenile Section, Merrillville, IN, George P. Galanos, Family Law and Juvenile Section, Crown Point, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae of the Lake County Bar, Family Law and Juvenile section.

On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 45A03–1307–DR–296

RUCKER

, Justice.

Ball State University attempted to appeal a trial court order joining the University as a party-defendant to this post-dissolution action and compelling the University to release a student's transcript. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on grounds that this is not an appropriate interlocutory appeal and thus it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action. We conclude this is an appeal of right under Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A)(3)

. Therefore we accept jurisdiction. On the merits, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

Jennifer Irons

(“Mother”) and Scott Irons (“Father”)¹ were married in 1992. A daughter Jordan (“Daughter”) was born as a result of the marriage which was dissolved in 1994. The trial court awarded Mother primary care and custody of Daughter, awarded Father what was then referred to as “visitation” (now “parenting time”) and ordered Father to pay child support in the amount of sixty-five dollars per week. In 2011, after Daughter enrolled at Ball State University, Mother filed a petition to modify child support and requested among other things that Father pay Daughter's postsecondary educational expenses. Daughter attended Ball State for the 2011–2012 school year, but withdrew in February or March 2012 at which time she owed an outstanding tuition bill in excess of $9,000. Thereafter Daughter attempted to enroll at Indiana University Northwest but could not do so without a copy of her official transcript from Ball State. In turn, Ball State would not release the transcript because of the outstanding tuition bill.

Seeking to add Ball State to this action and compel the University to release Daughter's transcript, in January 2013 Mother filed a “Motion to Join Supplemental Defendant and Order Release of Transcripts.” App. at 96. In part the motion declared the trial court would be “unable to fully adjudicate the issues and afford complete relief, as future college expenses cannot be completely determined until the child completes her enrollment at Indiana University Northwest, which requires the release of the child's transcripts from Ball State University.” Id. at 96–97.

Ball State responded with a motion to dismiss arguing among other things that it was “ready, willing and able to release the transcript as soon as the unpaid tuition balance is satisfied” but it “should not have to appear and defend this action or otherwise entangle itself in the domestic relations issues between the parties.” Id. at 104. On February 22, 2013 the trial court entered an order granting Mother's request to join Ball State as a supplemental defendant on the grounds of Indiana Trial Rule 19

because, according to the trial court, “BSU is an indispensable remedy defendant.” Id. at 121; see also Id. at 98. After a hearing the trial court on August 2, 2013 entered an order which reads in part:

2. [Mother] currently has pending before this court a Petition for Modification that includes a request for contribution from [F]ather payment for future college expenses as well as repayment of past college expenses for the parties' daughter....

* * *

4. In the fall of 2012, [Daughter] attempted to enroll at [IUN]. IUN would not let [Daughter] enroll without first providing a copy of her transcript from BSU.

5. BSU has a policy whereby it withholds the release of a student's transcript if there remains an unpaid tuition balance. And so it goes in this case. [Daughter] has requested a copy of her transcript so that she may enroll at IUN but BSU refuses to provide it. IUN will not enroll [Daughter] without a copy of her transcript. As such, [Daughter] is stuck in limbo. Likewise this situation leaves the court in a quandary since future college expenses cannot be completely determined until [Daughter] enrolls at a specific institution. Whether it be IUN or some other institution the court, not having a crystal ball, needs to know the amount of college expense expected so that the court may factor that information into a decision regarding, amongst other factors, the parties['] ability to contribute.

* * *

13. Importantly, BSU is not without a remedy as it has the ability to follow normal collection procedures including filing a complaint to collect the alleged outstanding debt, if any.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that BSU's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BSU is to release the transcript.

...

Id. at 120–21, 124.

Ball State appealed and Mother filed a motion to dismiss arguing the appeal was an impermissible interlocutory appeal. Ball State countered the appeal was an interlocutory appeal of right. In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals dismissed Ball State's appeal without reaching the merits, holding instead that it was not an appropriate interlocutory appeal as of right under Appellate Rule 14(A)(3)

and thus it lacked jurisdiction to entertain this action. Ball State Univ. v. Irons, 6 N.E.3d 1035 (Ind.Ct.App.2014). We now grant Ball State's petition to transfer thereby vacating the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Ball State's appeal. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). Addressing the merits of Ball State's claim, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Discussion

I. Jurisdiction

Because the relevant facts in this case are not in dispute we review de novo the threshold question of whether there is jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Ramsey v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246, 250 (Ind.2012)

. The appellate authority of this Court as well as the Court of Appeals is “generally limited to appeals from final judgments.” Id. at 251 (quotation and citation omitted). However, our Rules of Appellate Procedure also confer appellate jurisdiction over non-final interlocutory appeals pursuant to Appellate Rule 14. There are three ways a case may proceed as an interlocutory appeal: an interlocutory appeal of right (Rule 14(A) ); a discretionary interlocutory appeal (Rule 14(B) ); or an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification (Rule 14(C) ). Ball State contends its appeal was properly pursued as an interlocutory appeal of right under Appellate Rule 14(A)(3)

. That rule provides in relevant part:

A. Interlocutory Appeals of Right. Appeals from the following interlocutory orders are taken as a matter of right by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk within thirty (30) days after the notation of the interlocutory order in the Chronological Case Summary:

* * *

3. To compel the delivery or assignment of any securities, evidence of debt, documents or things in action....

App. R. 14(A)(3)

. To be sure this Rule is not “designed to create an appeal as of right from every order to produce documents during discovery.” State v. Hogan, 582 N.E.2d 824, 825 (Ind.1991). Nonetheless the Rule does involve court orders “which carry financial and legal consequences akin to those more typically found in final judgments: payment of money, issuance of a debt, delivery of securities, and so on.” Id. (discussing former Appellate Rule 4(B)(1) which was similarly worded). The question here is whether the judgment of the trial court directing Ball State to release Daughter's transcript is such an order. Under the facts of this case we believe it is.

Ball State maintains it has a common law lien over Daughter's transcript and may not be compelled to release the transcript absent payment of the unpaid tuition balance. Generally, a “ ‘lien’ is a claim which one person holds on another's property as a security for an indebtedness or charge.” Hubble v. Berry, 180 Ind. 513, 103 N.E. 328, 330 (1913)

; see also Black's Law Dictionary 1006 (10th ed. 2014) (defining lien as a “legal right or interest that a creditor has in another's property, lasting usually until a debt or duty that it secures is satisfied.”). Several types of liens have been codified in Indiana. See generally Ind.Code article 32–28 (“Liens on Real Property”); Ind.Code article 32–33 (“Liens on Personal Property”). But common law liens have not been abolished. See

Hendrickson & Sons Motor Co. v. Osha, 165 Ind.App. 185, 331 N.E.2d 743, 755 (1975) (noting “the possessory lien statute did not abrogate the garageman's common law lien, but rather was declaratory of the common law and provided the lienholder additional remedies”).

In Indiana, a common law lien is “a lien against real or personal property that is not: (1) a statutory lien; (2) a security interest created by agreement; or (3) a judicial lien obtained by legal or equitable process or proceedings.” Ind.Code § 32–28–13–1

.² In order to create a common law lien, two elements are necessary: debt and possession. Terpstra v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 483 N.E.2d 749, 755 (Ind.Ct.App.1985). Exclusive and independent possession is essential to the existence of such a lien. Id. One may then choose to enforce a common law lien by following the procedures in Indiana Code chapter 32–28–13.³

Here there is no question that Ball State retains exclusive and independent possession over a transcript which it declines to release because of an outstanding debt....