Sally Witherspoon v. Tawanna Brown (mem. dec.), 45A04-1608-SC-1816

Brown purchased 1708 Central Drive (Witherspoon’s residence) at a tax sale on May 1, 2015; Witherspoon remained in possession.
Brown filed a Notice of Claim for immediate possession and damages on February 23, 2016.
After an August 5, 2016 hearing, the trial court ordered immediate possession to Brown and set a damages hearing for September 27, 2016.
Witherspoon filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and a motion to stay on August 10, 2016, voluntarily vacated the premises on August 15, and the trial court granted her stay motion on August 17, 2016.
Witherspoon’s appellate brief did not challenge the possession order; she instead contested the timing of the trial court’s grant of her stay motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Witherspoon timely appealed the interlocutory possession order or may appeal the stay grant	Witherspoon contends the trial court prejudiced her by granting the stay two days after she vacated, so the stay was ineffectual and should be reviewed	Brown argues Witherspoon’s appeal invokes Rule 14(A) only for possession orders; a motion-to-stay ruling is not a matter-of-right interlocutory appeal and was not certified under Rule 14(B)	Appeal dismissed as untimely/forfeited: Witherspoon’s notice of appeal properly challenged the possession order but her brief did not; she sought review of a non-appealable stay order and did not obtain certification, so the appeal is dismissed

In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574 (Ind. 2017) (distinguishes forfeiture of appellate rights from jurisdiction and discusses when courts may excuse untimely appeals)
In re A.D., 737 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (example of an appeal from an order granting a stay certified as a discretionary interlocutory appeal)
Campbell v. El Dee Apartments, 701 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (standing doctrine bars litigants from asserting others’ rights to obtain relief for themselves)