State ex rel. Hulse v. Montgomery Circuit Court, 54S00-9002-OR-97
| Decision Date | 01 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 54S00-9002-OR-97,54S00-9002-OR-97 |
| Citation | 561 N.E.2d 497 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, ex rel. Patricia A. HULSE, Relator, v. The MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT and The Honorable Thomas K. Milligan, as Judge Thereof, and Mark W. Chapin, Respondents. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Thomas Todd Reynolds, Rocap, Witchger & Threlkeld, Indianapolis, for relator.
Harry A. Siamas, Crawfordsville, for respondents.
The relator presented her verified petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition. However, upon examination of the papers, the Court determined that original action was not the proper remedy and notified the relator that her petition for the writ would be denied without a hearing. Subsequently, she formally filed her papers with the Clerk of this Court, thus necessitating this opinion.
The relator was a defendant in a civil action in the respondent court. She obtained a favorable verdict after several days of trial. The plaintiff filed a motion to correct error which was overruled on July 26, 1989. On August 14, 1989, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider. The motion to reconsider was based on a then-new decision of this Court entitled, Manns v. State Dept. of Highways (1989), Ind. 541 N.E.2d 929. That case held that the existence and the amount of settlement generally should be kept from the jury. Although plaintiff did not timely file a praecipe, on September 28, 1989, the trial court nevertheless granted the motion to reconsider, vacated the judgment, and reset the matter for jury trial.
The relator did not file a motion to correct error or a praecipe within thirty days as required to take an appeal but instead waited until November 2, 1989 and filed a motion to reconsider the granting of plaintiff's motion to reconsider.
Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Rule 59(F) states:
"Any modification or setting aside of a final judgment or appealable final order following the filing of a motion to correct error shall be an appealable final judgment or order."
Relator claims under State ex rel. Jackson v. Owen Circuit Court (1974), 160 Ind.App. 685, 314 N.E.2d 73 the trial court loses all jurisdiction save emergencies after overruling a motion to correct error. Relator also cites Mohney v. State (1974), 159 Ind.App. 246, 306 N.E.2d 387 which states that motions to reconsider do not extend the time for appeal. These cases are a correct statement of the law.
We further observe that under Ind.R.T.P. 53.4, motions to reconsider are automatically overruled in five days. However, in the case at bar, if the trial court in fact did err in sustaining plaintiff's motion to reconsider, the relator did not take advantage of her appellate remedy from such a ruling. She argues however that she should not be put through the tortuous process of a new trial plus the possibility of the necessity of an appeal therefrom when an original action could solve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pan v. Dist. Ct.
...1155, 1156-57 (1991); State v. Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga Cty., 56 Ohio St.3d 33, 564 N.E.2d 86, 88 (1990); State ex rel. Hulse v. Circuit Court, 561 N.E.2d 497, 498 (Ind.1990). 5. Co. of Washoe v. City of Reno, 77 Nev. 152, 360 P.2d 602 6. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d 4......
-
Bradford v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State
...at 841 (citing Rim View Trout Co. v. Dep't of Water Res., 119 Idaho 676, 809 P.2d 1155, 1156–57 (1991); State ex rel. Hulse v. Montgomery Circuit Court, 561 N.E.2d 497, 498 (Ind.1990); State ex rel. Boardwalk Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga Cnty., 56 Ohio St.3d 33, 564 ......
-
Chapin v. Hulse
...supreme court issued its written opinion denying Hulse's petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition. State ex rel. Hulse v. Montgomery Circuit Court (1990), Ind., 561 N.E.2d 497. 06/04/91 The trial court granted Hulse's consolidated motion for relief from judgment and motion to dismiss (......