4 N.E.3d 793
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Dispute over ownership of real property not included in Lulu Townsend Estate's final decree.
- Kindreds have lived adjacent since 1975 and claimed ownership.
- Townsend learned in 2006 she might be an heir; in 2010 transferred her interest to Crone.
- In 2010, Kindreds sought to quiet title; Townsend and Crone moved for injunctive relief and injunction issued June 4, 2010.
- Six months later, Kindreds moved to dissolve; trial court denied after 2013 hearing; Kindreds filed interlocutory appeal in April 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from dissolution denial | Kindreds challenge the dissolution denial. | Appeal from dissolution denial is untimely if not timely filed from injunctive order. | Untimely; forfeited appeal rights from injunction entry. |
| Scope of Appellate Rule 14(A)(5) interpretation | Rule 14(A)(5) allows direct appeal from dissolution denial. | Broad reading would allow endless collateral appeals. | Rule read to require timely appeal from initial injunction order; later dissolution grounds cannot revive time-barred rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Estate of Sweeney, 808 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (interlocutory appeal must be timely filed)
- Haston v. State, 695 N.E.2d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (failure to timely perfect interlocutory appeal forfeits right)
- Bojrab v. Bojrab, 810 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 2004) (interlocutory error may be raised on final judgment appeal)
- Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. 2003) (interlocutory issues may be raised on final judgment appeal)
- Xantech Corp. v. Ramco Indus., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 918 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (distinguishable; collateral issues vs. proper interlocutory appeal")
- Oxford Fin. Grp., Ltd. v. Evans, 795 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (modification of injunction can create interlocutory appeal)