Audrey Mullins and Danny Mullins v. Robert Maas and Gail Maas (mem. dec.), 44A03-1611-MI-2631

Background

In 1981 Audrey and Danny Mullins bought property in Brushy Prairie and used an adjacent area (the Disputed Parcel) intermittently through 2006 (planting, mowing, structures nearby).
Linda Lee Perkins also used the Disputed Parcel and in 2006 conveyed property (including the Disputed Parcel) to Robert and Gail Maas; later the county auditor concluded Perkins lacked legal title at the time of that conveyance.
A 2013 survey excluded the Disputed Parcel from the Mullinses’ deeded property; the Mullinses sued the Maases for adverse possession in October 2013.
After a December 2014 bench trial the court initially entered judgment for the Mullinses; the Maases moved to correct error, and the trial court granted that motion on May 26, 2015, finding the Mullinses failed to prove control, intent, and notice required for adverse possession.
The Mullinses filed a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment in May 2016 (arguing excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, misrepresentation, and untimely ruling on the motion to correct error); the trial court denied relief on October 18, 2016, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TR 60(B) relief is warranted for excusable neglect/newly discovered evidence/misrepresentation	Mullins: health problems, questions about tax payments, existence of a septic tank, and alleged misrepresentations justify relief	Maases: trial court’s decision turned on Mullinses’ failure to prove adverse-possession elements (control, intent, notice); procedural grounds do not cure lack of meritorious claim	Denied — TR 60(B) relief fails because Mullinses did not allege a meritorious claim or defense; core adverse-possession failures were unchallenged
Whether the Mullinses alleged a meritorious claim/defense required by TR 60(B)	Mullins: procedural/evidentiary matters create grounds for relief that would affect entitlement	Maases: even with procedural issues resolved in Mullinses’ favor, lack of proof of control/intent/notice remains dispositive	Held against Mullins — they did not show a meritorious claim; absent that, TR 60(B) relief inappropriate
Whether the trial court’s ruling on the motion to correct error violated Trial Rule 53.3 timing requirements	Mullins: the court failed to rule within 30 days after the March 26, 2015 hearing, so the motion should be deemed denied	Maases: parties agreed to extend the timing; the court sought time to review trial recordings and secured counsel’s consent	Held for Maases — the record (orders and later findings) shows the parties agreed to extend the deadline, satisfying the Rule’s "on record" requirement
Whether an oral/telephonic agreement to extend T.R. 53.3 deadline satisfied the "on record" requirement	Mullins: any agreement was not sufficiently "on record" and thus the Rule’s time limits should control	Maases: the parties agreed at the March 26 conference and by later court entries; the court’s orders reflect the extension	Held for Maases — contemporaneous recording not required where court orders and counsel’s conduct demonstrate agreement (Anderson precedent)

Key Cases Cited

Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (sets adverse-possession elements and standard of proof)
In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2010) (TR 60(B) addresses procedural/equitable relief, not merits; burden on movant)
Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Holmes, 885 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for TR 60 rulings)
Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353 (Ind. 2002) (standard for reviewing findings under TR 52; two-tier review)
Barton v. Barton, 47 N.E.3d 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (discusses TR 60(B) standards and review; trans. denied)
Anderson v. Horizon Homes, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (parties’ agreement to extend TR 53.3 timing upheld where court record and later order reflect consent)