Kevin Campbell v. Irenea George
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 220
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Campbell (pro se) filed a small-claims action seeking return of his dog "Snickers" and $6,000 in damages against George.
- Both parties appeared before a Johnson County magistrate, who issued an order the same day awarding Snickers to George and denying Campbell's claim.
- The magistrate’s order and subsequent denials of Campbell’s motions were signed only by the magistrate and were not adopted or signed by a judge.
- Campbell timely moved in superior court challenging the magistrate’s authority and later appealed after the clerk’s record was completed.
- The superior court judge denied Campbell’s post-appeal motion for lack of jurisdiction under Appellate Rule 8.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether the magistrate’s order constituted a final appealable order under the statutes and local rule and remanded for the judge to adopt or reject the magistrate’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a magistrate’s unsigned small-claims order is a final appealable order | Campbell: magistrate lacked power to enter a final appealable order and the order is not appealable without judge adoption | George: implicitly that magistrate’s final order in small claims was binding (or that Campbell waived any challenge) | The magistrate’s order was not a final appealable order; remand for judge adoption or rejection |
| Whether Campbell waived challenge by failing to object at trial | Campbell: objected while case was still in superior court before clerk’s record completion, so did not waive | George: would argue failure to object waives the issue | Court: challenge was preserved because Campbell objected before jurisdiction passed to appellate court |
| Appropriate remedy for non-appealable magistrate order | Campbell: remand for judge action rather than dismissal | George: could have argued finality or dismissal | Court: remand for adoption/rejection by judge; dismissal not required |
| Effect of statutory scheme and local rule on magistrate authority | Campbell: statutes and local rule require judge to enter final order except limited criminal exceptions | George: likely contended magistrate authority under statute sufficed | Court: statutory text and local rule show magistrate may enter a final order in small claims but not a final appealable order; judge must enter final order |
Key Cases Cited
- Tongate v. State, 954 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses limits on magistrate authority)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 882 N.E.2d 223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (invalidated magistrate’s civil final orders under prior law)
- Brandmaier v. Metro. Dev. Comm’n, 714 N.E.2d 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (statutory expressio unius exclusio alterius principle)
- Floyd v. State, 650 N.E.2d 28 (Ind. 1994) (failure to object to court officer’s authority waives issue absent timely objection)
- In re Adoption of I.B., 32 N.E.3d 1164 (Ind. 2015) (same-waiver principle discussed)
- K.E. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 39 N.E.3d 641 (Ind. 2015) (admonishment that judicial officers must follow statutory authority)