City of Carmel through its Redevelopment Commission v. Crider & Crider, Inc., and Hagerman Construction Corporation, 988 N.E.2d 808

CRC appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to transfer venue from Allen County to Hamilton County.
Crider & Crider, Inc. sued Hagerman Construction Corp. and CRC for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in Allen County.
CRC and Hagerman's contract included a venue clause asserting Hamilton County as the proper venue for disputes.
Hagerman and Crider had a cross-claim against CRC, and the court treated the claims as intertwined.
The trial court ruled Allen County was a preferred venue under TR 75 and held the venue clause did not apply to Crider; CRC appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does venue lie in Hamilton County due to the venue clause?	Crider: venue clause controls and TR 21(B) applies to joinder.	CRC/Hagerman: TR 75 governs; Allen County is preferred venue.	Hamilton County is the appropriate venue.
Does Trial Rule 21(B) apply to CRC as an originally-named defendant in the cross-claim?	TR 21(B) should govern since claims are intertwined and conserve resources.	CRCHam argued no application to CRC because original defendant.	TR 21(B) applies to the entire matter.
Did the jury-demand by CRC in Allen County waive transfer rights?	Jury demand does not waive venue transfer rights under Rule 12; not a waiver.	Waiver arguments based on contract and jury demand may apply.	No waiver; CRC could pursue transfer.

Linky v. Midwest Midrange Sys., Inc., 799 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (venue clauses can govern cross-cutting disputes when reasonable and just)
Ind. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Log Homes, Inc., 774 N.E.2d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (TR 21(B) conservation of resources and expeditious litigation)
Shanklin v. Shireman, 659 N.E.2d 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (motion on jury demand not a Rule 12 waiver of venue rights)
Phillips v. Scalf, 778 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (standard of review for change of venue is abuse of discretion)