Teegarden v. Sattison
| Decision Date | 22 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-1279A336,3-1279A336 |
| Citation | 404 N.E.2d 1163 |
| Parties | Karen Jean (Charlewood) TEEGARDEN, Defendant-Appellant, v. Jimmie L. SATTISON, Clayton Sattison, Jr., and Sattison Refrigeration, Plaintiffs-Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Howard E. Petersen and Richard K. Muntz, Petersen & Muntz Law Office, LaGrange, for defendant-appellant
Joshua I. Tourkow, Tourkow, Danehy, Crell, Hood & Rosenblatt, Fort Wayne, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Jimmie L. Sattison, Clayton Sattison, Jr., and Sattison's Refrigeration (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sattison"), filed a complaint against Karen Jean Teegarden for money owing on equipment sold and work performed. The trial court entered judgment for Sattison. Teegarden appeals, contending that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for a change of venue from the judge.
We reverse.
In 1975, the General Assembly enacted legislation 1 which significantly altered Indiana's system of courts of limited jurisdiction. The legislation, inter alia, abolished justice of the peace courts and, in their place, established county courts.
Each of the county courts maintains three dockets:
(1) an offenses docket.
(2) a small claims docket for:
(A) all cases where the amount sought or the value of the property sought to be recovered is $1,500 or less, and
(B) all possessory actions between landlord and tenant where the rent reserved does not exceed $500 per month; and
(3) a plenary docket for civil cases above $1,500 but not more than $3,000. IC 33-10.5-7-1.
While cases assigned to the small claims dockets are subject to relaxed rules of procedure and evidence, the cases assigned to the plenary dockets are, except as otherwise provided in the Legislation, governed by the rules of procedure as adopted by the Supreme Court. IC 33-10.5-7-2.
Sattison filed its complaint in the plenary docket of the Steuben County Court on February 27, 1979. On April 2, 1979, Teegarden filed an answer to the complaint and a motion for a change of venue from the judge. The motion was denied and the matter proceeded to trial.
IC 33-10.5-7-3 specifically provides that a change of venue from the judge of a county court "shall be granted as provided by statute and rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana." Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 76 renders the granting of a change of venue mandatory if it is requested within ten days after the issues are first closed on the merits. Here, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bird v. Delaware Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission
...for change of venue is filed, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction except to grant the change of venue. Teegarden v. Sattison, (1980) Ind.App., 404 N.E.2d 1163; State Ex Rel. Yockey v. Superior Court of Marion County, (1974) 261 Ind. 504, 307 N.E.2d 70; Anderson v. Sell, (1971) 150 I......
-
Annon II, Inc. v. Rill
...from the time the issues were first closed on the merits to motion for change of venue. See T.R. 76(2); see also Teegarden v. Sattison (1980), Ind.App., 404 N.E.2d 1163, 1164 (defendant's motion for change of venue filed within ten days of answer was timely). The trial court properly denied......
-
State ex rel. First State Bank of Whiting v. Porter Superior Court, 882S321
...is mandatory upon the trial judge, so long as the motion is filed within the time limits prescribed by Rule 76(2). Teegarden v. Sattison, (1980) Ind.App., 404 N.E.2d 1163; City of Fort Wayne v. State ex rel. Hoagland, (1976) 168 Ind.App. 262, 342 N.E.2d 865. Since the defendant's Motion for......
-
Pence v. Jarrett
...special treatment in our judicial scheme of things. They are subject to relaxed rules of procedure and evidence. Teegarden v. Sattison, (1980) Ind.App., 404 N.E.2d 1163, 1164. The small claims docket as noted by Judge Garrard was created for the purpose of providing speedy justice to litiga......