132 N.E.3d 69
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Jackson County Bank sued Mathew DuSablon for breach of a 2007 noncompete/confidentiality agreement and sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
- After a fact‑finding hearing the trial court entered a preliminary injunction finding DuSablon violated the agreement; DuSablon then resigned and opened a competing practice nearby.
- The court found DuSablon disobeyed discovery, granted the Bank’s motion to compel, and entered a September sanctions order directing the Bank to submit an affidavit of fees and giving DuSablon time to contest.
- The court later converted the preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction, found DuSablon in contempt for violating the injunction, and deferred sanctions for contempt.
- In October the trial court entered a fees judgment for $5,734 (the October Fees Order). DuSablon filed two consolidated interlocutory notices of appeal claiming App. R. 14(A)(1) and 14(A)(5) jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review most orders; although the October Fees Order was appealable under App. R. 14(A)(1), DuSablon failed to meaningfully challenge that order, so the appeal was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DuSablon could appeal the preliminary injunction under App. R. 14(A)(5) | The order appealed was no longer a preliminary injunction (it was converted to permanent), so Rule 14(A)(5) does not confer jurisdiction | The preliminary injunction was appealable as of right under App. R. 14(A)(5) | No — conversion to permanent injunction removes Rule 14(A)(5) basis for interlocutory appeal |
| Whether the permanent injunction or the contempt finding is appealable as of right under App. R. 14(A) | Permanent injunction and contempt findings are not covered by Rule 14(A) as interlocutory appeals of right | DuSablon treated the Permanent Injunction and Contempt Order as appealable | No — permanent injunction and contempt (by themselves) do not create App. R. 14(A) jurisdiction; sanctions were deferred, so not an order for payment |
| Whether the October Fees Order is appealable under App. R. 14(A)(1) | The October Fees Order is an order for the payment of money and therefore appealable as of right | DuSablon broadly attacked the trial proceedings (claiming bias) instead of specifically contesting the fees order | Yes as to jurisdiction — the October Fees Order is appealable under App. R. 14(A)(1) but DuSablon failed to meaningfully challenge it, so nothing to review |
| Whether broad due‑process/bias claims allow collateral attack on interlocutory orders | Challenges to the trial’s fairness must be raised against the specific order in the appeal; generalized attacks do not substitute for a cognizable challenge to the appealed order | The judge’s alleged bias infected all orders, rendering them void | No — generalized assertions of bias without cogent, order‑specific argument do not provide a basis to review or vacate interlocutory orders under App. R. 14(A); appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (court must determine appellate jurisdiction before addressing merits)
- Ind. Newspapers, Inc. v. Miller, 980 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Witt v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. 2012) (App. R. 14(A)(5) does not apply to temporary restraining orders; Rule’s scope is limited)
- Tom‑Wat, Inc. v. Fink, 741 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. 2001) (interlocutory appeal presents only issues raised by the specific order on appeal)
- Bessette v. Turflinger (In re Paternity of S.R.W.), 100 N.E.3d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (App. R. 14(A)(1) exists to allow review when a party is compelled to pay money pending litigation)
- Rowe v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 940 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (order deferring sanctions is not an order for payment of money for Rule 14(A)(1) purposes)