Santana v. Santana
Decision Date | 09 April 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 71A04-9810-CV-498,71A04-9810-CV-498 |
Citation | 708 N.E.2d 886 |
Parties | Bonnie M. SANTANA, Appellant-Respondent, v. William SANTANA, Appellee-Petitioner. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Bonnie Santana ("Mother") appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for change of judge in an action for modification of grandparent visitation filed by William Santana ("Grandfather"), the paternal grandfather of Mother's children. Mother raises one issue which we restate as whether, pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 76, a party is entitled to a change of judge as a matter of right with respect to a petition for modification of grandparent visitation. We reverse.
The relevant facts follow. In 1997, the trial court granted Grandfather visitation with his granddaughter, H.D. On May 14, 1998, Grandfather filed a petition for modification of grandparent visitation. On May 19, 1998, Mother filed a motion for change of judge which was granted that same day by the trial court. Thereafter, Grandfather filed a motion to reconsider. After a hearing on the motion to reconsider, the trial court reversed its order granting the change of judge.
Before we reach the merits of this appeal, we note that Grandfather failed to file an appellee's brief. When the appellee fails to submit a brief, we need not undertake the burden of developing an argument for the appellee. Applying a less stringent standard of review, we may reverse the trial court if the appellant can establish prima facie error. Johnson County Rural Elec. v. Burnell, 484 N.E.2d 989, 991 (Ind.Ct.App.1985). Prima facie in this context is defined as "at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it." Id. Where an appellant is unable to meet this burden, we will affirm. Blair v. Emmert, 495 N.E.2d 769, 771 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), reh'g denied, trans. denied.
Mother asserts that she was entitled to an automatic change of judge regarding Grandfather's petition for modification of visitation. We agree. The applicable rules for change of judge are found in T.R. 76 and Ind.Code § 34-2-12-1. Trial Rule 76 provides in relevant part as follows:
"(B) In civil actions, where a change may be taken from the judge, such change will be granted upon the filing of an unverified application or motion without specifically stating the ground therefore by a party or his attorney. Provided, however, a party shall be entitled to only one change from the judge. After a final decree is entered in a dissolution of marriage case, a party may take only one change of judge in connection with petitions to modify that decree, regardless of the number of times new petitions are filed....
* * * * *
(C) In any action except criminal no change of judge or change of venue from the county shall be granted except within the time herein provided....
(1) in those cases where no pleading or answer may be required to be filed by the defending party to close issues (or no responsive pleading is required under a statute), each party shall have thirty days from the date the same is placed and entered on the chronological case summary of the court."
(emphasis added). Indiana Code § 34-2-12-1 1 provides:
Therefore, "Trial Rule 76 along with [I.C. § 34-2-12-1] covers any 'civil action' and makes it mandatory to grant a change of venue when the time limitations are satisfied." In re Goetcheus, 446 N.E.2d 39, 41 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) ( ). The question in this appeal, yet to be addressed in Indiana, is whether a petition for modification of grandparent visitation is a civil action thereby qualifying for a change of judge as a matter of right.
Mother cites In re the Marriage of K.B. v. S.B., 415 N.E.2d 749 (Ind.Ct.App.1981), as the case most analogous to the facts before us. In Marriage of K.B., we held that a petition to modify parental visitation constituted a civil action as contemplated by I.C. § 34-2-12-1 and was therefore entitled to a change of judge under T.R 76. Id. at 757. In so holding we reasoned:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crafton v. Gibson
...did not file a response brief. When an appellee fails to file a response brief, we need not develop her arguments. Santana v. Santana, 708 N.E.2d 886, 887 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999). "However, this circumstance in no way relieves us of our obligation to decide the law as applied to the facts in the......
-
In re Paternity of MGS
...the Bekes failed to file an appellee's brief and, thus, the appellant need only establish prima facie error, see Santana v. Santana, 708 N.E.2d 886, 887 (Ind.Ct. App.1999), we choose to address this case on the 3. In his brief, Wachowski refers to the time limit as imposed by I.C. § 31-19-3......
-
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Calhoun
...error in this context is defined as, ‘at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.’ ” Id. (quoting Santana v. Santana, 708 N.E.2d 886, 887 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) ). When the appellant is unable to meet this burden, we will affirm the trial court's ruling. Id.First American argues t......
-
Ind. Dept. Enviro. Manag. v. Const. Manag.
...Prima facie error in this context is defined as, "at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it." Santana v. Santana, 708 N.E.2d 886, 887 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (quoting Johnson County Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Burnell, 484 N.E.2d 989, 991 (Ind.Ct.App.1985)). If the appellant i......