10 N.E.3d 61
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Father sought paternity, custody, parenting time, and child support; after a hearing Judge Ted Todd issued a final order in Aug. 2012 granting Mother sole physical custody and awarding child support and parenting time. The court did not address legal custody or a pending contempt petition.
- Father appealed; this court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for rulings on legal custody, a contempt petition, and clarification of child-support findings.
- While the appeal was pending, Father filed a petition to modify and a change-of-judge motion under Ind. Trial Rule 76(B); the trial court granted the change and Special Judge Morris assumed jurisdiction for the modification.
- After remand, a dispute arose whether Judge Todd (who heard the original evidence and became an active senior judge) or Special Judge Morris should decide the remanded issues.
- Special Judge Morris concluded Trial Rule 63(A) required Judge Todd, if available, to decide post-trial rulings related to the evidence; the trial court’s denial of Father’s post-judgment motions was deemed denied, and Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a change-of-judge under Trial Rule 76(B) divested the original judge of authority to decide remanded post-trial matters under Trial Rule 63(A) | Father: Change-of-judge granted to Special Judge Morris covers all pending matters, so Morris should rule on remanded issues | Mother/Special Judge: 76(B) change applies prospectively to the modification petition; 63(A) requires the judge who heard the evidence (Judge Todd), if available, to decide rulings related to that evidence | The rules do not conflict: 76(B) operates prospectively for the modification; 63(A) operates to require the original trial judge who heard the evidence (Judge Todd), if available, to decide remanded issues. Affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. v. Cronin, 903 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review and rule interpretation principles)
- Dreyer & Reinbold, Inc. v. AutoXchange.com., Inc., 771 N.E.2d 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (construe Trial Rules together and harmoniously)
- In re Marriage of Turner, 785 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (change-of-judge with modification petition is prospective and does not relate back)
- Trojnar v. Trojnar, 656 N.E.2d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (change-of-judge principles in family-related proceedings)
- Roberts v. State, 500 N.E.2d 197 (Ind. 1986) (retirement does not automatically render a judge unavailable under Trial Rule 63(A))