Ken Kocinski v. Jane Cotton, Eighth Street Rentals, LLC (mem. dec.), 48A02-1707-MI-1639

Adjacent property owners: Cotton (plaintiff) rehabilitating her building discovered mold in a north wall that abutted Kocinski’s (defendant) vacant lot and needed access across his lot to repair it.
Informal access negotiations failed when Kocinski demanded $5,000; Cotton filed a Motion for Emergency Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on June 9, 2017 to permit contractors to enter Kocinski’s lot for repairs between June 12–23, 2017.
The trial court granted Cotton’s motion on June 9; Kocinski moved to vacate and to correct error citing Trial Rules (procedural defects, due process, lack of claim), and a hearing was held June 15.
The court denied Kocinski’s motions, ordered Cotton to post a $3,500 security bond, and Cotton moved to extend the injunction; Kocinski filed a motion for change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B).
The court extended the injunction to June 27, 2017, denied the change-of-judge motion as untimely, and later declared its June 23 order final; the repairs appear to have been completed by the expiration date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court could treat Cotton’s emergency motion as a filed pleading under Trial Rule 7	Motion constituted a proper pleading to obtain immediate relief	Motion failed to satisfy Trial Rules; not a recognizable claim	Moot — court did not reach merits because injunction expired; appeal dismissed
Whether the court erred by granting the emergency injunction/TRO ex parte without hearing	Ex parte relief was necessary to prevent imminent damage and allow repairs	Granting ex parte relief violated due process and procedural rules	Moot — no effective relief available; issues not decided on merits
Whether the injunction/TRO lacked required findings and security bond/verified complaint under Trial Rules 65(B)(2) and 65(C)	Cotton later posted bond as ordered and complied with court’s direction	Initial order lacked the formal findings/bond/verification required by rules	Moot — appellate court declined to review on merits
Whether denial of change of judge under Trial Rule 76(C) was proper	Not directly argued by plaintiff in opinion	Kocinski: change was timely and required	Moot — court found change-of-judge motion untimely below but appellate court dismissed appeal for mootness and did not review merits

Thurman v. Thurman, 777 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (failure of appellee to brief: court may apply less stringent review and reverse only for prima facie error)
Van Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (definition of prima facie error)
Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc. v. Durham, 748 N.E.2d 404 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (mootness doctrine: issue is moot if no live controversy or no effective relief possible)
Annexation Ordinance F-2008-15 v. City of Evansville, 955 N.E.2d 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (public-interest exception to mootness may allow review in matters of broad public importance)
In re Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (public-interest exception typically involves recurring issues)

Outcome: Appeal dismissed as moot; appellate court declined to apply the public-interest exception.