Jenny Anne Lee v. Paul William Lee (mem. dec.), 49A04-1609-DR-2107

Mother and Father divorced after a 2014 mediated settlement that awarded Mother sole custody and allowed relocation to Zionsville; Father paid weekly child support.
In Sept. 2015 Mother filed notice to relocate the children to Nineveh; the trial court ultimately granted the relocation and appointed a GAL.
Father filed a motion to correct error and later a written motion to modify custody; a July 26, 2016 hearing occurred and the court set an August 9, 2016 hearing on modification.
On the morning of the August 9 hearing Mother filed a motion for change of judge under Trial Rule 76, which the trial court initially granted; Father then moved to reconsider.
On August 12, 2016 the trial court granted Father’s motion to reconsider and his motion to correct error, vacating the change-of-judge order and scheduling further hearings; Mother sought interlocutory certification and filed a direct appeal.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Mother’s appeal as forfeited because the August 12 order was neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order under Appellate Rule 14.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s August 12 order (reconsidering grant of change of judge) was appealable	The August 12 order was reviewable and the court should resolve whether vacating the change of judge was proper	The order was not final or an appealable interlocutory order, so appeal was premature	Court: Not appealable; appeal forfeited and dismissed
Whether the August 12 order was a final judgment	Mother implied it should be treated as final for purposes of appeal	Multiple issues (relocation, custody) remained pending, so it did not dispose of all claims	Court: Not final (didn’t resolve all parties/issues; no TR 54(B) entry)
Whether the order was appealable under Appellate Rule 14	Mother sought interlocutory certification under Rule 14(B) and argued importance of the question	Trial court denied certification; no statute or Rule 14(A) ground shown	Court: Not appealable under Rule 14(A)/(D); Rule 14(B) certification denied — no appeal
Whether appellate court should nonetheless hear the merits despite forfeiture	Mother urged review; dissent urged judicial-economy review	Father urged dismissal for lack of appealability/forfeiture	Majority: May be discretion to hear merits but will not; dismissal appropriate

State ex rel. Neal v. Hamilton Circuit Court, 224 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. 1967) (definition of final judgment disposing of all issues and parties)
Adoption of S.J., 967 N.E.2d 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (interlocutory appeal standards)
Paulson v. Centier Bank, 704 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (purpose of Rule 14 and TR 54(B) to avoid piecemeal appeals)
Young v. Estate of Sweeney, 808 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellant’s burden to identify statutory basis for interlocutory review)
In re D.J. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 68 N.E.3d 574 (Ind. 2017) (distinguishing forfeiture from lack of jurisdiction; appellate courts may decline forfeiture)
Johnson Cty. Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. S. Cent. Indiana Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 883 N.E.2d 141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (de novo review of legal questions involving trial rules)