Willie Jenkins v. Mary Jenkins
17 N.E.3d 350
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parties divorced in October 2012; dissolution decree required Wife to collect and deliver certain of Husband’s personal property to Husband within 30 days.
- Husband alleged Wife failed to deliver multiple items and filed a petition for contempt on November 27, 2013, seeking a hearing and attorney fees.
- The court set a contempt hearing for February 28, 2014, and required Husband to provide a list of items.
- On January 30, 2014, Wife filed a motion to vacate the hearing stating she contacted opposing counsel about the motion but received no response; she asserted the property issue was resolved.
- The trial court granted Wife’s motion and vacated the hearing on January 31, 2014, before Husband filed any response; Husband then sought restoration of the hearing based on a local rule requiring 15 days to respond when an objection "may ensue."
- The trial court denied Husband’s request to restore the hearing; Husband appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting Wife’s motion to vacate before allowing Husband 15 days to respond under local rule LR49-TR5-203 | Jenkins argued the local rule makes a 15-day response period mandatory when the filing indicates an objection "may ensue" and Wife’s statement did not show approval | Wife argued she contacted opposing counsel and received no response, implying no objection; court acted within discretion | Court held the local rule required the 15-day response when objection "may ensue," and granting the motion before that period was error; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 970 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2012) (local rules bind court and litigants but may be set aside in rare cases when justice requires)
- Spencer v. Spencer, 990 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (use of "shall" indicates mandatory requirement)
- Meredith v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1309 (Ind. 1997) (discusses when rules may be relaxed to serve justice)
- City of S. Bend v. Dollahan, 918 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("may" ordinarily connotes discretion)
- In re Paternity of S.C., 966 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (prima facie error standard when appellee does not file a brief)
- Wright v. Wright, 782 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (discussion of appellate burden when appellee fails to brief)
- Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 2006) (appellate courts must correctly apply law to record despite relaxed standards)