Kevin L. Snyder v. Anastasia Snyder
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 383
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Kevin and Anastasia Snyder married in 1997, executed an antenuptial agreement, and have two children.
- Wife filed for legal separation in 2011; Husband later filed for dissolution. The parties agreed the antenuptial agreement would be enforced with some edits.
- At the June 18, 2013 final hearing, the parties disputed whether five antique cars, a motorcycle, and two trailers (the Vehicles), titled in Husband’s name but acquired during the marriage, were separate or marital property; no valuation evidence was presented.
- On March 30, 2015 the trial court issued a dissolution decree finding the Vehicles were marital property but reserved valuation and distribution for a later date; it also ordered child-related matters and awarded some attorney fees.
- Husband filed a post-judgment filing styled “Motion to Correct Error” on April 29, 2015; the trial court ruled on that motion on September 29, 2015. Husband filed a notice of appeal on October 28, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 30, 2015 order was appealable as a final judgment | Husband treated the March 30 order as final and sought review | Wife argued the order was interlocutory because valuation/distribution of Vehicles remained reserved | March 30 order was not a final judgment (left unresolved issues and lacked T.R. 54(B) language) |
| Whether the March 30, 2015 order was an appealable interlocutory order under App. R. 14(A) | Husband implicitly argued appealable because the order included money awards (child support/fees) | Court considered whether categories in App. R. 14(A) applied and whether Husband timely appealed | March 30 order was an appealable interlocutory order for payment of money, but Husband failed to timely appeal within 30 days |
| Effect of Husband’s April 29 motion labeled “Motion to Correct Error” | Husband contended the motion preserved his appellate rights and tolled appeal deadlines | Court treated the filing as a motion to reconsider because the underlying order was interlocutory; motions to reconsider do not toll appeal deadlines | The filing was a motion to reconsider (not a correct-error motion) and did not toll the 30-day deadline, so the interlocutory appeal was forfeited |
| Timeliness and jurisdiction to appeal the September 29, 2015 ruling on the motion | Husband attempted to appeal the September 29 ruling | Wife argued the motion was deemed denied earlier and the September 29 order was neither final nor appealable | The September 29 ruling was untimely (motion deemed denied earlier) and not an appealable order; appellate court dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Blinn v. Dyer, 19 N.E.3d 821 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate court may raise timeliness sua sponte and untimely appeals forfeit the right absent compelling reasons)
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (extraordinarily compelling reasons required to excuse forfeiture of an untimely appeal)
- Front Row Motors, LLC v. Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753 (Ind. 2014) (whether an order is final determines appellate subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Bueter v. Brinkman, 776 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (definition of a final judgment disposing of all claims as to all parties)
- Rowe v. Ind. Dep’t of Correction, 940 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (orders for child support or attorney fees qualify as orders for payment of money under App. R. 14(A))
- Citizens Indus. Group v. Heartland Gas Pipeline, LLC, 856 N.E.2d 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishing motions to reconsider and motions to correct error and their effect on appeal timetables)
- Hudson v. Tyson, 383 N.E.2d 66 (Ind. 1978) (warning that filing a motion to reconsider after an appealable interlocutory order is "fraught with danger" because it does not toll appeal deadlines)