Imre L. Falatovics v. Amy L. Falatovics
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 108
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Husband and Wife divorced; trial court entered a dissolution decree on Dec. 19, 2013 dividing the marital estate. Wife appealed; the Court of Appeals obtained jurisdiction Jan. 29, 2014.
- While the first appeal was pending, Husband filed a verified Trial Rule 60(B) motion (May 7, 2014) alleging Wife committed fraud by failing to disclose assets. The trial court continued the 60(B) hearing because the appeal was pending.
- The Court of Appeals (Falatovics 1) reversed part of the decree and remanded to include Husband’s interest in two parcels; the trial court issued an amended decree and Husband appealed that decree (Falatovics 2), which the Court of Appeals later affirmed.
- Husband filed an addendum to his 60(B) motion challenging valuations of the parcels; he also sought a stay of the appeal and remand so the trial court could decide his 60(B) motions—this Court denied his remand request.
- After the second appeal was resolved and jurisdiction returned to the trial court, Wife moved to dismiss Husband’s 60(B) motions (March 2016). The trial court dismissed them for failure to follow the proper procedure (Logal procedure) while an appeal was pending; Husband appealed that dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in dismissing Husband’s Trial Rule 60(B) motions for failure to follow the Logal procedure while an appeal was pending | Husband conceded he did not follow Logal but argued Logal/Southwood are distinguishable because (a) he was not the original appellant and (b) his 60(B) grounds differed from Wife’s appeal | Wife argued dismissal was proper because the trial court lacked jurisdiction once the Court of Appeals obtained jurisdiction; movant must follow Logal procedure to pursue 60(B) relief while appeal is pending | Court affirmed dismissal: Logal procedure applies whenever the appellate court has jurisdiction and the same judgment is at issue; Husband waived proper procedure and was not entitled to hearing |
| Whether laches or invited error bar Wife’s motion to dismiss | Husband: Wife waited ~2 years to move to dismiss (laches); and by seeking continuances she invited error | Wife: She timely moved to dismiss after jurisdiction returned; continuances merely noted lack of trial-court jurisdiction and were not error | Court rejected laches and invited error defenses; Wife acted within reasonable time and did not invite error |
| Whether dismissing 60(B) motions without an evidentiary hearing violated Husband’s due process or right to access courts | Husband: Denial of evidentiary hearing deprived him of federal and state constitutional rights | Wife: Procedural failure forfeited entitlement to hearing; Husband could have had a hearing if he followed correct procedure | Court held no constitutional violation: procedural requirements can bar a hearing; Husband was not deprived of opportunity to be heard because he failed to follow required procedure |
| Whether appeal was frivolous such that Wife is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees | Wife: Award fees because appeal is frivolous and in bad faith | Husband: Appeal challenges dismissal on applicable law | Court denied fees: appeal lacked merit but was not frivolous or in bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Logal v. Cruse, 368 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. 1977) (sets procedure for seeking Trial Rule 60(B) relief while an appeal is pending)
- Southwood v. Carlson, 704 N.E.2d 163 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (applies Logal and vacates trial-court 60(B) relief entered after appellate jurisdiction attached)
- Jahangirizadeh v. Pazouki, 27 N.E.3d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (equates dismissal of a Trial Rule 60(B) motion with a denial for purposes of appellate review)
- Plank v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., 981 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. 2013) (procedural failures can forfeit entitlement to evidentiary hearings on constitutional claims)