113 N.E.3d 1236
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Poiry, a New Haven police officer, was demoted by the New Haven Police Department Merit Board after a disciplinary hearing. The Board denied his post-judgment appeal.
- Poiry filed a complaint for judicial review in Allen Superior Court but did not file a bond simultaneously with the complaint, though he knew a bond was required by statute.
- Poiry attempted to post a bond informally at the clerk’s office; the clerk initially said a judge must set the amount, then allowed him to post $100. The trial court never formally fixed a bond amount.
- The City moved to dismiss (treated as a motion for summary judgment) asserting Poiry’s failure to post the statutorily required bond; Poiry moved for summary judgment on a different ground.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City and denied Poiry’s motion to correct error. Poiry appealed, arguing the bond statute was ambiguous as to amount and procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to file a bond simultaneously with the complaint required dismissal | Poiry: statute requires a bond but is ambiguous as to amount and how it is set; he could not post an amount when filing and clerk would not accept a bond without the court fixing the amount | City: statute requires filing a bond at time of filing; failing to do so warrants dismissal | Court: Filing a bond is required but not a jurisdictional condition precedent to filing the complaint; the trial court must fix the bond amount and give Poiry time to post it; dismissal is proper only if plaintiff fails to post after amount is set |
Key Cases Cited
- Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Watson, 70 N.E.3d 380 (discussing standard of review for motions to correct error)
- City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227 (de novo review for statutory interpretation issues)
- Webb v. City of Carmel, 101 N.E.3d 850 (standards for summary judgment review)
- FLM, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 973 N.E.2d 1167 (summary judgment standard)
- Robson v. Tex. E. Corp., 833 N.E.2d 461 (scope of review and designated materials on summary judgment)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (burden shifting in summary judgment)
- Henderson v. Reid Hosp. and Healthcare Servs., 17 N.E.3d 311 (presumption of validity for trial court’s summary judgment)
- Miller v. Town Bd. of Sellersburg, 88 N.E.3d 217 (statutory interpretation basics)
- Pike Tp. Educ. Found., Inc. v. Rubenstein, 831 N.E.2d 1239 (statutory construction principles)
- Sees v. Bank One, Ind., N.A., 839 N.E.2d 154 (plain-meaning rule)
- Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning Inc., 746 N.E.2d 941 (legislative clarity in statutes)
- Harper v. Boyce, 809 N.E.2d 344 (bond for will contest not a condition precedent to filing; plaintiff must file bond before proceeding)
Outcome: Reversed and remanded with instructions that the trial court fix an adequate bond amount (not less than $100), set a time to post it, and proceed if posted; dismissal is permitted only if bond is not posted in that time.