Thomas L. Arflack v. Town of Chandler, Indiana Chandler Town Council and Town of Chandler Advisory Plan Commission, 27 N.E.3d 297

In January 2013 Arflack was appointed to fill an unexpired citizen seat on Chandler’s Advisory Plan Commission through Dec. 31, 2013, and served that term.
On Jan. 6, 2014 the Town Council voted to reappoint Arflack to a new four-year term; he was elected Commission president on Jan. 12.
On Jan. 21, 2014 the Town Council unanimously rescinded the reappointment and on Mar. 17, 2014 appointed a successor (Woolen).
Arflack filed a verified complaint on Apr. 4, 2014 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the Council removed him without the written notice required by statute and thus violated his due-process/right-to-appeal rights.
Chandler moved to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing (1) Arflack’s suit was time-barred under I.C. § 34-13-6-1, (2) no injury was alleged to support declaratory relief, and (3) attachments (meeting minutes) were uncertified; the trial court granted dismissal but allowed 30 days to amend.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the dismissal was an appealable order and that Arflack’s complaint stated a claim for relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s dismissal was a final, appealable order	Arflack proceeded with appeal before 30-day cure expired; appellate review should proceed	Chandler argued the dismissal was not final because court gave 30 days to amend, so appeal is premature	Court treated the order as appealable (Arflack waived any defect) and exercised jurisdiction
Whether the complaint stated a claim under T.R. 12(B)(6) (timeliness, injury, uncertified attachments)	Arflack: his cause accrued when successor was appointed (Mar. 17) because he had statutory right to serve until successor qualified and he never received written removal notice; complaint pleads injury (deprivation of due process) and attachments' defects do not mandate dismissal	Chandler: suit was untimely (accrued on Jan. 21 when reappointment rescinded), complaint fails to allege actual injury, and attachments were uncertified so dismissal was appropriate	Court held complaint was timely (accrual on successor’s appointment), alleged sufficient injury to seek declaratory/injunctive relief, and failure to attach certified documents alone does not warrant dismissal; reversed and remanded

Constantine v. City-County Council of Marion Cnty., 369 N.E.2d 636 (Ind. 1977) (sustaining a 12(B)(6) motion without entry of judgment is not a final judgment)
Parrett v. Lebamoff, 383 N.E.2d 1107 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) (procedure and opportunity to amend after sustaining a 12(B)(6) motion)
Trail v. Boys & Girls Club of Nw. Ind., 845 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. 2006) (standard of review and pleading inferences on motion to dismiss)
ITT Hartford Ins. Group v. Trowbridge, 626 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (when a civil action is premature because it has not accrued)
Wilson v. Palmer, 452 N.E.2d 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (noncompliance with T.R. 9.2(A) does not automatically justify dismissal)