Parrett v. Lebamoff, 3-178A18
Decision Date | 08 January 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 3-178A18,3-178A18 |
Citation | 179 Ind.App. 25,383 N.E.2d 1107 |
Parties | Barbara PARRETT, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jerry L. Parrett, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boris LEBAMOFF and Peter G. Atzeff, d/b/a Green Frog Inn, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Ronald Frybarger, Fort Wayne, for plaintiff-appellant.
Barrett Barrett & McNagny, Wm. F. McNagny, John F. Lyons, Fort Wayne, for defendants-appellees.
The plaintiff then appealed. Citing Constantine v. City-Cty. Council of Marion Cty. (1977), Ind., 369 N.E.2d 636 the defendants assert there is no appealable final judgment and the appeal must be dismissed.
We find two distinct propositions of law in Constantine.
The first is that a trial court entry sustaining a motion but going no further is not sufficient to constitute a final judgment. Thus, in Constantine the ruling merely stated, "Defendant's motion to dismiss granted." This was not a judgment. See also Starke Memorial Hospital v. Todd Equipment Leasing Co. (1975), Ind.App., 333 N.E.2d 925; Hendrickson v. American Fletcher Nat'l. Bank & Trust Co. (1973), 158 Ind.App. 20, 301 N.E.2d 530. The court's entry in the present case which Adjudicated dismissal of the claim and taxed the costs of the action is not subject to this defect.
The second proposition concerns the appropriate method for adjudging a dismissal pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6).
Clearly this language does not contemplate the immediate entry of judgment upon the sustaining of such a motion. Rather it prescribes a procedure similar to the old practice on demurrers. The court should grant the motion, await the expiration of the ten day period and then adjudge the dismissal for the failure of the party to plead over. In the alternative the party against whom the motion is granted may advise the court of his election to not plead over and thus authorize entry of judgment.
However, it is equally clear that the only party harmed by the entry of judgment immediately upon the sustaining of a TR 12(B)(6) motion is the party against whom the motion was directed. If he in fact does not wish to plead over, no harm has occurred from the error.
In addition, we are mindful that Appellate Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. Anderson
...sufficiency of the complaint to state a redressable claim. Furthermore, as in the case of T.R. 12(B)(6) motions, see, Parrett v. Lebamoff, (1979) Ind.App., 383 N.E.2d 1107, if a T.R. 12(C) motion raising the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is sustained, ......
-
Krueger v. Bailey, 3-579A128
...without prejudice to parties who may be aggrieved by subsequent proceedings in the court below." See also Parrett v. Lebamoff (1979), Ind.App., 383 N.E.2d 1107, 1109; First Equity Security Life Insurance Co. v. Keith (1975), 164 Ind.App. 412, 329 N.E.2d 45, In order to facilitate the speedy......
-
Indiana Civil Rights Com'n v. Indiana Dept. of Aging and Community Services
...See State ex rel. Clay Community Schools v. Parke Circuit Court (1979), 271 Ind. 266, 392 N.E.2d 804, 805; Parrett v. Lebamoff (1979), 179 Ind.App. 25, 383 N.E.2d 1107. Moreover, assuming, as Thomas argues, prehearing rulings made by the chairman must be ratified by the ultimate authority, ......
-
Parke v. First Nat. Bank of Elkhart
...v. Small, Inc. (1986), Ind.App., 495 N.E.2d 248, trans. denied; Huff v. House (1983), Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 1015; Parrett v. Lebamoff (1979), 179 Ind.App. 25, 383 N.E.2d 1107. But see Huff, supra, at 1017-18 (Conover, J., dissenting); Kasten v. Sims Motor Transport (1975), 166 Ind.App. 117, ......