Middlekamp v. State Exchange Finance Co.

Decision Date29 December 1972
Docket NumberNo. 3--672A22,3--672A22
Citation155 Ind.App. 45,290 N.E.2d 780
PartiesJohn E. MIDDLEKAMP and Larain Middlekamp, Husband and Wife, Appellants, v. STATE EXCHANGE FINANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Alex Hanewich and Ruth Hanewich, Husband and Wife, Appellees.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Paul B. Huebner, Hammond, Dale Schwanke, DeMotte, for appellants.

Thomas B. Dumas, Cope J. Hanley, Rensselaer, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the Court on the Appellees' Motion to Dismiss Appeal or Affirm Judgment of the Court Below Brief in Support thereof, Appellants' Objections to Appellees' Motion, Appellants' Motion for Certiorari, and Appellees' Response to Motion for Certiorari.

The Appellees' Motion to Dismiss or Affirm alleges as cause therefor that no motion to correct errors was ever filed in the trial court, and that the praecipe was filed seventy-four (74) days after judgment. Appellants assert in response to the Motion to Dismiss that 'the Appellees' Motion for Dismissal is estopped' by reason of certain agreements in the trial court between counsel and the Judge. Appellants do not further enlighten us, either as to the nature of the agreements, or as to how any such agreements could operate to circumvent rules TR. 59(G) IC 1971, 34--5--1--1, and AP. 7.2(A)(1)(a).

Appellees' response to Appellants' Motion for Certiorari contains the affidavit of the trial judge which states, inter alia, that there were no agreements between himself and trial counsel to waive the filing of a motion to correct errors, that no motion to correct errors was filed, and no motion to correct errors was actually considered by the trial court.

We have examined the record of the proceedings herein which reveals that this was a cause of action for possession of real estate. After trial, the Court entered judgment on March 24, 1972. The record does not contain a motion to correct errors. The record does contain an assignment of errors directed to this court. The record does not show that the assignment of errors was filed in the trial court.

In the case of Indiana State Personnel Board et al. v. Diggs (1971) Ind., 272 N.E.2d 868, our Supreme Court had before it a case in which a motion to dismiss was filed which alleged the appellants' failure to file a motion to correct errors. The Supreme Court, by Justice Prentice, held as follows:

'TR. 59(G) provides as follows:

'Motion to correct error a condition to appeal. In all cases in which a motion to correct errors is the appropriate procedure preliminary to an appeal, such motion shall separately specify as grounds therefor each error relied upon however and whenever arising up to the time of filing such motion. Issues which could be raised upon a motion to correct errors may be considered upon appeal only when included in the motion to correct errors filed with the trial court. A motion to correct errors shall not be required in the case of appeals from interlocutory orders, orders appointing or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Middelkamp v. Hanewich
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 20, 1977
    ...Middelkamps failed to file a motion to correct errors; their appeal from this judgment was dismissed. Middelkamp v. State Exchange Finance Co. (1972), 155 Ind.App. 45, 290 N.E.2d 780. C. The Present On May 17, 1973, Middelkamps filed the present action against Hanewiches in four paragraphs.......
  • Daben Realty Co., Inc. v. Stewart
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 29, 1972
  • Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 24, 1974
    ...Wilson (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 448; Bradburn v. Co. Dept. Public Welfare (1971), Ind.App., 266 N.E.2d 805; Middlekamp v. State Exchange Finance Co. (1973), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 780. The Appellants attempt to extricate themselves from their procedural dilemma by stating they placed their re......
  • Murray v. Murray
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 25, 1974
    ...Wilson (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 448; Bradburn v. Co. Dept. Public Welfare (1971), Ind.App., 266 N.E.2d 805; Middlekamp v. State Exchange Finance Co. (1973), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 780. The appellee's Motion to Dismiss is sustained and this cause is ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT