Paula Adams v. Shadrach Gonqueh and Amazing Family Dental, P.C. d/b/a Amazing Family Dental (mem. dec.), 49A05-1702-CT-349

Paula Adams, Newell Boyce, and Donald Scribner sued Dr. Shadrach Gonqueh and Amazing Family Dental alleging negligence, dental malpractice, CVRA, and RICO claims arising from extractions performed in 2012.
The defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted full summary judgment as to Adams (finding her claims time-barred and CVRA/RICO insufficient) and partial summary judgment as to Boyce and Scribner (CVRA/RICO claims dismissed; malpractice/negligence claims remained).
The trial court’s order in favor of Adams expressly stated it was a final judgment with no just reason for delay under Trial Rules 54(B)/56(C).
Adams missed the 30-day appeal deadline and filed a Trial Rule 60(B) motion asking the court to recast its final summary-judgment order as non-final (so she could seek interlocutory certification), claiming mistake or excusable neglect.
The trial court denied the 60(B) motion; Adams appealed the denial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the order was final and 60(B) relief was unavailable for a mere legal mistake or to recharacterize a final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s summary-judgment order was final	Adams: order should be non-final because her claims are intertwined with co-plaintiffs	Defendants: order disposed of all Adams’s claims and was properly entered as final under TR 54(B)/56(C)	Final judgment: the order was final as to Adams; no dispute the order disposed of all her claims
Whether Trial Rule 60(B) permits recasting a final judgment as non-final due to mistake	Adams: mistake/excusable neglect entitled her to relief to allow interlocutory appeal certification	Defendants: 60(B) cannot be used to alter finality or remedy a legal mistake	Held for defendants: 60(B) not available to recharacterize final order or for a mistake of law; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether an intertwined factual relationship to co-plaintiffs prevents finality	Adams: intertwined claims required treating the order as non-final	Defendants: court may enter differing dispositions for different parties; TR 54(B)/56(C) allow finality as to fewer than all parties	Held for defendants: intertwined facts do not negate written finality for Adams under the Rules
Whether appellate court should permit deviation from appeal deadlines under App. R. 1	Adams: requests extraordinary deviation to allow belated appeal	Defendants: no extraordinary circumstances warranting deviation	Held for defendants: no extraordinary circumstances; decline to deviate from 30-day deadline

Dillard v. Dillard, 889 N.E.2d 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (Trial Rule 60(B) affords relief only in extraordinary circumstances and not for movant’s fault)
Siebert Oxidermo, Inc. v. Shields, 446 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 1983) (trial court’s discretion on excusable neglect is broad and fact-specific)
Ford Motor Co. v. Ammerman, 705 N.E.2d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (appellate review of denial of 60(B) is limited and requires showing the ruling is against the logic and effect of the facts)
Peals v. County of Vigo, 783 N.E.2d 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (a court may grant summary judgment as to fewer than all parties and that judgment can be final for affected parties)
Goldsmith v. Jones, 761 N.E.2d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (Trial Rule 60(B) does not provide relief for a mistake of law)