Syndicate Claim Servs., Inc. v. Trimmel

• Decision Date: 08 December 2021
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-PL-1231
• Citation: 178 N.E.3d 1273
• Parties: SYNDICATE CLAIM SERVICES, INC., Appellant-Defendant, v. Jill TRIMMEL, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

178 N.E.3d 1273

SYNDICATE CLAIM SERVICES, INC., Appellant-Defendant,

v.Jill TRIMMEL, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-PL-1231

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED December 8, 2021

Rehearing Denied February 4, 2022

Attorneys for Appellant: Paul L. Jefferson, Erik C. Johnson, McNeelyLaw LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Katherine M. Moore, Michael L. Schultz, Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson, Kruse LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana

Molter, Judge.

[1] In this discretionary interlocutory appeal, Defendant Syndicate Claim Services, Inc. appeals the trial court's order denying its motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff Jill Trimmel's claim under Indiana's Wage Payment Statute. Because Syndicate filed its notice of appeal one week late, it forfeited its appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(5). And because there are no extraordinarily compelling reasons to restore the appeal, we dismiss it.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Trimmel sued Syndicate for breach of contract and violations of Indiana's Wage Payment Act, Indiana Code section 22-2-5-1 et seq. , alleging that Syndicate failed to pay her commissions and profit share payments it owed her. The trial court denied Syndicate's motion for partial summary judgment on the Wage Payment Act claim and certified the order for interlocutory review. Our court accepted jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal, but then Syndicate filed its notice of appeal one week late.

[3] After recognizing the mistake, Syndicate filed a Verified Motion to Accept Belated Notice of Appeal for Interlocutory Appeal explaining that when this court issued its order accepting jurisdiction over the appeal, lead counsel was on vacation. While on vacation, his elderly father broke his arm. Counsel is responsible for his father's care, so when he returned from vacation, he spent considerable time finding long-term care for his father. Although co-counsel had appeared, he overlooked the deadline too. Also, the firm's calendaring system had been malfunctioning, but counsel did not investigate whether that contributed to the oversight before filing the motion.

[4] Trimmel moved to dismiss the appeal on timeliness grounds. Our court's motions panel denied that motion and granted Syndicate's motion for a belated appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Although the motions panel denied Trimmel's motion to dismiss, we retain inherent authority to revisit that decision. Core v. State , 122 N.E.3d 974, 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). We are generally reluctant to do so, id. , but earlier this year our Supreme Court concluded that interlocutory appeals like this one should be dismissed, so we exercise our discretion to revisit the decision of the motions panel here. Cooper's Hawk Indianapolis, LLC v. Ray , 162 N.E.3d 1097, 1098 (Ind. 2021) (per curiam) (granting transfer of an interlocutory appeal and explaining that "finding no extraordinarily compelling reasons to restore the forfeited appeal, we dismiss the appeal and remand to the trial court for further proceedings").

[6] After our court accepts jurisdiction over a discretionary interlocutory appeal, the appellant must file a notice of appeal within fifteen days. Ind. Appellate Rule 14(B)(3). If they do not, they forfeit their appeal. App. R. 9(A)(5). At that point, the only way to restore the appeal is to demonstrate "extraordinarily compelling reasons" to do so. In re Adoption of O.R. , 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind. 2014). Other panels of this court have lamented a lack of guidance as to what qualifies as extraordinarily compelling reasons, see, e.g. , Cannon v. Caldwell , 74 N.E.3d 255, 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), but our cases restoring appeals tend to fall in two categories.

[7] The first category covers cases with fundamental liberty interests at stake, like the right to maintain the parent-child relationship or the right to bail. See, e.g. , Robertson v. Robertson , 60 N.E.3d 1085, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (restoring a forfeited appeal and recognizing that "a parent's interest in the custody of his child is a fundamental liberty interest, and the parent-child relationship is one of the most valued relationships in our culture"); Satterfield v. State , 30 N.E.3d 1271, 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (restoring a forfeited appeal and recognizing that the right to bail is "a traditional and cherished right"). The second category covers cases where there is an "obvious injustice," such as the violation of child support guidelines that is clear on the face of the trial court's order. Cannon , 74 N.E.3d at 258–59.

[8] Cooper's Hawk seemed to endorse these two categories while still leaving room to recognize others. While "it is never error for an appellate court to dismiss an untimely appeal," the Supreme Court explained that appeals may be restored when important constitutional interests are at stake, and it cited approvingly our court's Caldwell decision dealing with appellate review of orders that are manifestly unjust. Cooper's Hawk Indianapolis, LLC , 162 N.E.3d at 1098. Because the interlocutory appeal in Cooper's Hawk did not fit into either category, and there were no other extraordinarily compelling reasons to restore the forfeited appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. Id.

[9] We likewise...