TeWalt v. TeWalt
Decision Date | 15 June 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 1-181A6,1-181A6 |
Citation | 421 N.E.2d 415 |
Parties | Patricia Lois TeWALT, Appellant (Respondent Below), v. George Lewis TeWALT, Appellee (Petitioner Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
H. Brent Stuckey, Hart, Bell, Deem, Ewing & Stuckey, Vincennes, for appellant.
Joe D. Black, Ramsey & Black, Vincennes, for appellee.
Patricia and George TeWalt were divorced on January 24, 1979. George was given custody of the parties' minor child. Their agreed settlement which was incorporated into the divorce decree stated:
Shortly after the decree Patricia apparently left the state with the child. On September 17, 1979, George filed a "Petition for Authority to Pay Money into Court and For Appointment of a Commissioner" in which he alleged:
"That paragraph 3 B of said agreement specified that if the real estate owned by the parties was not sold within six (6) months after the dissolution, Petitioner had the right to pay to Respondent the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and that upon receipt of said cash Respondent would convey to Petitioner a deed to her interest in said real estate.
That the Respondent has removed herself from the State of Indiana and Petitioner does not know her location or whereabouts other than he knows she is living somewhere in the state of Florida.
Your Petitioner respectfully submits that he wishes to deliver to the court, or in the alternative to a commissioner appointed by this court, said Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and he further requests that this court appoint a commissioner to convey the following described real estate to him pursuant to said agreement. Said real estate is located at 1219 North 11th Street in Vincennes, Indiana."
The same date the petition was filed, the trial court entered this order:
Patricia filed a T.R. 60(B)(6) motion on December 14, 1979, to vacate the court's order on the grounds that neither she nor her attorneys received notice of the petition for the appointment of the commissioner. This motion was denied on January 16, 1980. She then filed a Motion to Correct Errors on March 11, 1980, containing the issues she requests this court to review. They are:
I. Whether the trial court erred by conditioning her receipt of the funds held by the commissioner on her compliance with the custody provisions of the divorce decree; and
II. Whether the trial court erred by not requiring Patricia to be notified of the petition for appointment of a commissioner.
We affirm.
Patricia alleges the September 17, 1979, judgment is erroneous because it conditions her receipt of the funds held by the commissioner on her compliance with the custody provisions of the original divorce decree. Patricia first raised this allegation in her Trial Rule 59 Motion to Correct Errors filed on March 11, 1980. This issue has been waived for failure to timely file a Motion to Correct Errors since the filing of a Trial Rule 60 Motion to Vacate does not toll the sixty-day time limitation from the date of the judgment for perfection of appeals. Dawson v. Wright, (1955) 234 Ind. 626, 129 N.E.2d 796; Warner v. Young America Volunteer Fire Dept., (1975) 164 Ind.App. 140, 326 N.E.2d 831.
The trial court entered a final judgment appointing a commissioner on September 17, 1979. In order to attack this aspect of the judgment she should have filed a Motion to Correct Errors within sixty days of that judgment or included the issue in the Motion to Vacate under Trial Rule 60(B)(8). Her filing of the Trial Rule 60(B)(6) Motion to Vacate alleging the judgment was void did not toll the time limitation for filing a Trial Rule 59 Motion to Correct Errors on other grounds. See Roberts v. Watson, (1977) 172 Ind.App. 108, 359 N.E.2d 615; Irmiger v. Irmiger, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 519, 364 N.E.2d 778.
In addition we note Patricia's argument is meritless as it is based on an unfounded assumption. The order states:
"(S)aid commissioner shall hold said sum of money less costs and fees, for and on behalf of the respondent, Patricia Lois TeWalt, until damand (sic) for payment be made therefore by the respondent personally appearing before this court."
Patricia's argument presupposes her receipt of the funds is contingent on her returning the child to George. As one can clearly see from the quoted passage this was not ordered by the court. The court only required Patricia to appear to receive the funds. The argument based on custody is therefore inapplicable. Patricia makes no argument concerning the order for her to appear. We therefore have no issue presented to us for review.
George, in his petition, requested the court to enforce the January 24, 1979, judgment by conveying to him title to the property. He alleged entitlement to complete ownership by virtue of the passage of time and failure of the property to sell for more than $23,000. He was, in effect, applying for a writ of assistance.
A writ of assistance is an equitable remedy normally used to transfer real property, the title of which has been previously adjudicated, as a means of enforcing the court's own decree. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., (1924) 196 Ind. 373, 145 N.E. 493, cert. denied 270 U.S. 633; 7 Corpus Juris Secundum, Assistance, Writ of, § 1 (1937). The provisions for the actual conveyance of title by a commissioner were set forth in Burns' Statutes §§ 3-1001 3-1009. 1
This remedy has been subsumed by Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 70(A), which states:
Historically an application for a writ of assistance was a supplemental proceeding, i. e., a continuation of the original action whose effect was only to enforce the original order. Emerick v. Miller, (1902) 159 Ind. 317, 64 N.E. 28; Brackney v. Boyd, (1919) 71 Ind.App. 592, 123 N.E. 695; reh. den. 71 Ind.App. 592, 125 N.E. 238. We can find no authority to indicate the nature of this writ was changed by T.R. 70(A). One can infer from the Civil Code Study Commission Comments that no such change was contemplated:
"Rule 70(A) effectuates little change under prior Indiana law. Previous to the adoption of the rule, the court retained inherent power to appoint a court officer to carry out the orders of the court.... Prior law recognized that possession of property under an equitable decree or order could be enforced by a writ of assistance.
....
Upon the adoption of Rule 70(A) the technical requirements of Burns' Stat., §§ 3-1001 3-1004 will be eliminated by repeal. Thus the approval by the court will not be required as a condition of the validity of the deed. Compare Burns' Stat., § 3-1006."
We therefore believe it is still the case in Indiana as in Illinois that:
(citations omitted)
City of Chicago v. Walker, (1978) 61 Ill.App.3d 1050, 18 Ill.Dec. 578, 377 N.E.2d 1214, 1216.
Patricia contends the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction due to lack of notice. We do not agree. Since the petition for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rohrkaste v. City of Terre Haute
...422 N.E.2d 302. The appellant has the burden of showing an erroneous and prejudicial ruling of the trial court. TeWalt v. TeWalt (1981), Ind.App., 421 N.E.2d 415. Without a showing of actual harm, we have no basis for reversing a trial court's judgment. Id. Here Rohrkaste asks us to reverse......
-
Jones v. Housing Authority City South Bend
...Jones relief, and Jones has failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the procedural due process error. See TeWalt v. TeWalt, 421 N.E.2d 415, 420 (Ind.Ct.App.1981)(applying harmless error doctrine to a claim of deficient Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not ......
-
In re T.W., 49A02-0501-JV-19.
...Appellant's Brief at 10. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating Mother's parental rights. See, e.g., TeWalt v. TeWalt, 421 N.E.2d 415, 420 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (holding that because appellant presented no prejudice "caused by her not receiving notice we can find no reversible error")......
-
Termination the Parent-Child Relationship I.P. v. Child Advocates, Inc.
...Indeed, one who seeks to disturb a judgment has the burden of showing an erroneous ruling and resultant prejudice. TeWalt v. TeWalt, 421 N.E.2d 415, 420 (Ind.Ct.App.1981). The fact that a determination was made by a judge or magistrate is not conclusive on the issue of neutrality. Green v. ......