113 N.E.3d 274
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Eskenazi filed for emergency detention and then a petition for regular commitment of L.J.; a hearing was set after a judge found probable cause.
- A probate commissioner conducted the evidentiary hearing on Jan. 4, 2018, found L.J. gravely disabled and dangerous, and signed an order of regular commitment dated that day.
- The commissioner’s commitment order bore a judge-signature line but did not contain the judge’s signature; the case CCS shows the commissioner’s entry but no judge-signed final order.
- Six days later the probate judge signed an unrelated court-business approval order (under a different cause number) purporting to approve findings of magistrates/commissioners for a date range that included the hearing date; that order did not reference L.J.’s case or appear on L.J.’s CCS.
- Issue presented: whether the commissioner’s signed commitment constitutes a final appealable order absent a judge’s specific, case-referenced entry adopting the commissioner’s findings as the court’s final order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a commissioner’s signed commitment is a final appealable order without a judge specifically entering a final order | L.J.: Commissioner’s order is invalid because statute requires the court (judge) to enter the final order | Eskenazi: Judge’s later business-record approval order sufficiently indicates the judge approved and adopted the commissioner’s order | Court: Commissioner cannot enter final order; the judge’s unrelated business-record approval without case reference is insufficient, so no final order exists |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption I.B., 32 N.E.3d 1164 (Ind. 2015) (magistrates generally cannot enter final appealable orders absent appointment as judge pro tempore or special judge)
- In re Hawkins, 902 N.E.2d 231 (Ind. 2009) (review by the presiding judge is substantive, not a mere formality; failure to observe final-order requirement subject to sanction)