Ball State University v. Jennifer Irons In Re the Marriage of: Jennifer Irons and Scott Irons
27 N.E.3d 717
| Ind. | 2015Background
- Mother sought modification of child support to include Daughter’s postsecondary expenses after Daughter enrolled at Ball State University (BSU) and later withdrew owing over $9,000 in tuition.
- Daughter could not enroll at Indiana University Northwest (IUN) because BSU refused to release her official transcript due to the unpaid balance.
- Mother filed a motion to join BSU as a supplemental defendant and to compel release of the transcript so the court could determine future college expenses.
- Trial court denied BSU’s motion to dismiss, concluded BSU was an "indispensable remedy defendant" under Trial Rule 19, and ordered BSU to release the transcript.
- BSU appealed; the Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, held the appeal was of right under App. R. 14(A)(3), and reversed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether order compelling BSU to release the transcript is an interlocutory appeal of right under App. R. 14(A)(3) | The order is necessary to determine future college expenses; compelling production is appealable as it delivers documents akin to securities | The order is not appealable as of right; it's an ordinary discovery/interlocutory ruling | Court: Yes. BSU’s common-law lien over the transcript makes the order appealable under App. R. 14(A)(3) |
| Whether BSU has a common-law lien on the transcript permitting it to withhold release until tuition paid | Mother did not dispute BSU’s possession; she argued release needed for determining expenses | BSU asserted exclusive possession and a retaining/common-law lien over the transcript until debt paid | Court: BSU satisfied lien elements (debt + possession); common-law lien exists and supports appealability |
| Whether BSU was a necessary party under Trial Rule 19(A) so it could be joined as a supplemental defendant | Mother argued joinder was required because future college expense determinations depended on the transcript/institution | BSU argued it should not be dragged into domestic relations litigation and joinder was unnecessary; collection remedies exist | Court: Mother failed to prove joinder was necessary; trial court abused discretion in joining BSU; joinder reversed |
| Appropriate remedy after reversal | N/A | N/A | Court remanded with instruction to dismiss BSU from the action |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hogan, 582 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 1991) (orders compelling production of documents that carry financial/legal consequences can be interlocutory appeals of right)
- Hubble v. Berry, 103 N.E. 328 (Ind. 1913) (definition and nature of liens)
- Terpstra v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 483 N.E.2d 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (elements of a common-law lien: debt and possession)
- Rollins Burdick Hunter of Utah, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball State Univ., 665 N.E.2d 914 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (adopting abuse-of-discretion, fact-sensitive standard for joinder under Trial Rule 19)
- Grimes v. Crockrom, 947 N.E.2d 452 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (jurisdiction under App. R. 14(A)(3) where a retaining/common-law lien was asserted over records)
- Hendrickson & Sons Motor Co. v. Osha, 331 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975) (common-law liens survive and coexist with statutory remedies)
- State ex rel. Stanton v. Superior Court of Lake County, 355 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 1976) (third parties should not be compelled into dissolution proceedings when issues are tangential)