State of Indiana v. Chad T. Mooney, Brittany McCool
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 27
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Chad Mooney and Brittany McCool each had driving privileges suspended after chemical-test results indicated blood alcohol concentrations above legal limits; both later entered pretrial diversion agreements tied to DADS program completion (Mooney completed; McCool did not).
- Trial court orders reinstated their driving privileges without requiring proof of future financial responsibility (SR22); the court clerk later re-sent those orders to the BMV.
- The Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) intervened and moved under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) to set aside the reinstatement orders, arguing IC § 9-30-6-12 requires SR22 filing after a chemical-test suspension regardless of conviction.
- The trial court denied the BMV’s motions after a consolidated hearing, expressing disagreement with the BMV’s statutory interpretation.
- The State appealed the denial of its Rule 60(B) motions; the Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and for prima facie error (appellees did not file briefs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the BMV’s T.R. 60(B) motions to set aside orders reinstating licenses without SR22 | The BMV/State argued there was delay and/or mistake in processing orders and that statute requires SR22 after a chemical-test suspension, so relief under T.R. 60(B)(1) or (8) was warranted | Mooney/McCool (respondents) relied on the trial court’s orders reinstating privileges and did not separately brief the appeal; trial court disagreed with BMV’s statutory reading and denied relief | Affirmed: State failed to show "mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect" or other extraordinary circumstances; motions attacked legal merits rather than procedural grounds, so T.R. 60(B) relief was improper and no prima facie error was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Z.S. v. J.F., 918 N.E.2d 636 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (Trial Rule 60(B) affords relief only in extraordinary circumstances not caused by the movant)
- Fitzgerald v. Cummings, 792 N.E.2d 611 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (party invoking T.R. 60(B)(1) must describe the mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect)
- Gertz v. Estes, 922 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (T.R. 60(B) cannot be used as a substitute for direct appeal)
- In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2010) (T.R. 60(B) addresses procedural/equitable grounds for relief from final judgment, not merits)
- Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 2006) (when appellee fails to brief, appellate court reviews for prima facie error)
- Am. Family Ins. Co. v. Globe Am. Cas. Co., 774 N.E.2d 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (discusses SR22/Financial Responsibility Act context for reinstatement requirements)