In re the Paternity of: T.D., A Minor Child: Sara K. Drake v. Charles C. DeLangis (mem. dec.), 10A01-1612-JP-2929

Mother filed to establish child support for T.D.; Father failed to appear and the trial court entered a support order (including arrearages) in 2011.
Father later obtained counsel and in 2015 sought modification of support and a separate modification of the arrearage, arguing entitlement to relief under Trial Rule 60(B).
After briefing, the trial court granted Father’s petition and modified the arrearage by order entered August 22, 2016; the CCS showed electronic notice sent August 23, 2016.
Mother’s counsel did not discover the order until October 6, 2016; on October 18 Mother moved under Trial Rule 72 to reset her deadline to file a motion to correct error or a notice of appeal, alleging lack of notice.
The trial court denied the Trial Rule 72 request and subsequently denied Mother’s motion to correct error; Mother appealed and also asked this Court to permit a belated appeal of the arrearage modification.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying Mother’s motion to correct error	Trial Rule 72(E) permits extension when clerk’s CCS does not show service; counsel lacked actual notice and relied on clerk	CCS and e-notice show electronic service on August 23, 2016; counsel failed to monitor docket for ~44 days	Court: No abuse of discretion; CCS evidenced notice so permissive relief under Rule 72(E) not warranted
Whether Court should consider a belated appeal of the arrearage modification	Mother asked Court to waive Appellate Rule 9 and hear a late appeal due to lack of timely notice	Father opposed; argued appeal rights were forfeited by failure to timely file	Court: Declined to restore forfeited appeal; Mother failed to show extraordinarily compelling reason to waive the rule

Santelli v. Rahmatullah, 993 N.E.2d 167 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for motions to correct error)
Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. 2013) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Markle v. Indiana State Teachers Ass’n, 514 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. 1987) (purpose of Trial Rule 72 to allow relief when clerk’s mailing is not evidenced)
Taylor v. State, 939 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (Rule 72(E) relief warranted where CCS was ambiguous and contained mailing errors)
Lake Holiday Conservancy v. Davison, 808 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (Rule 72 relief appropriate when CCS lacked notation of mailed order)
Slay v. Marion Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 603 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (counsel entitled to rely on clerk’s notification)
In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (extraordinarily compelling reasons required to restore forfeited appellate rights)