BALL STATE UNIVERSITY, Aрpellant (Defendant below), v. Jennifer IRONS, Appellee (Plaintiff below). In re the Marriage of Jennifer Irons, Wife (Plaintiff below), and Scott Irons, Husband (Defendant below).
No. 45S03-1503-DR-134
Supreme Court of Indiana
March 18, 2015
27 N.E.3d 717
Maureen B. Moss, Jane Dall Wilson, Faegre Bakеr Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Supporting Ball State University‘s Petition to Transfer.
Debra Lyn Dubovich, Family Law and Juvenile Section, Merrillville, IN, George P. Galanos, Family Law and Juvenile Section, Crown Point, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae of the Lake County Bar, Family Law and Juvenile section.
Ball State University attempted to appeal a trial court order joining the University as a party-defendant to this post-dissolution action and compelling the University to release a student‘s transcript. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on grounds that this is not an appropriate interlocutory appeal and thus it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action. We conclude this is an appeal of right under
Facts and Procedural History
Jennifer Irons (“Mother“) and Scott Irons (“Father“)1 were married in 1992. A daughter Jordan (“Daughter“) was born as a result of the marriage which was dissolved in 1994. The trial court awarded Mother primary care and custоdy of Daughter, awarded Father what was then referred to as “visitation” (now “parenting time“) and ordered Father to pay child support in the amount of sixty-five dollars per week. In 2011, after Daughter enrolled at Ball State University, Mother filed a petition to modify child suрport and requested among other things that Father pay Daughter‘s postsecondary educational expenses. Daughter attended Ball State for the 2011-2012 school year, but withdrew in February or March 2012 at which time she owed an outstanding tuition bill in excess of $9,000. Thereafter Daughter attempted to enroll at Indiana University Northwest but could not do so without a copy of her official transcript from Ball State. In turn, Ball State would not release the transcript because of the outstanding tuition bill.
Seeking to add Ball State to this aсtion and compel the University to release Daughter‘s transcript, in January 2013 Mother filed a “Motion to Join Supplemental Defendant and Order Release of Transcripts.” App. at 96. In part the motion declared the trial court would be “unable to fully adjudicate the issues and afford complete relief, as future college expenses cannot be completely determined until the child completes her enrollment at Indiana University Northwest, which requires the release of the child‘s transcripts from Ball Statе University.” Id. at 96-97.
Ball State responded with a motion to dismiss arguing among other things that it was “ready, willing and able to release the transcript as soon as the unpaid tuition balance is satisfied” but it “should not have to appear and defend this action or otherwise entangle itself in the domestic relations issues between the parties.” Id. at 104. On February 22, 2013 the trial court entered an order granting Mother‘s request to join Ball State as a supplemental defendant on the grounds of
2. [Mother] currently has pending before this court a Petition for Modification that includes a request for contribution from [F]ather payment for future college expenses as well as repayment of past college expenses for the parties’ daughter. . . .
* * *
4. In the fall of 2012, [Daughter] attempted to enroll at [IUN]. IUN would not let [Daughter] enroll without first providing a copy of her transcript from BSU.
5. BSU has a policy whereby it withholds the release of a student‘s transcript if there remains an unpaid tuition balance. And so it goes in this case. [Daughter] has requested a copy of her transcript so that she may enroll at IUN but BSU refuses to provide it. IUN will not enroll [Daughter] without a copy of her transcript. As such, [Daughter] is stuck in limbo. Likewise this situation leaves the court in a quandary since future college expenses cannot be completely determined until [Daughter] enrolls at a specific institution. Whether it be IUN or some other institution the court, not having a crystal ball, neеds to know the amount of college expense expected so that the court may factor that information into a decision regarding, amongst other factors, the parties[‘] ability to contribute.
* * *
13. Importantly, BSU is not without a remedy as it has the ability to follow normal collection procedures including filing a complaint to collect the alleged outstanding debt, if any.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that BSU‘s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BSU is to release the transcript.
Id. at 120-21, 124.
Ball State appealed and Mother filed a motion to dismiss arguing the appeal wаs an impermissible interlocutory appeal. Ball State countered the appeal was an interlocutory appeal of right. In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals dismissed Ball State‘s appeal without reaching the merits, holding instead that it was not an appropriate interlocutory appeal as of right under
Discussion
I. Jurisdiction
Because the relevant facts in this case are not in dispute we review de novo the threshold question of whether there is jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Ramsey v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246, 250 (Ind. 2012). The appellate authority of this Court as well as the Court of Appeals is “generally limited to appeals from final judgments.” Id. at 251 (quotation and citation omitted). However, our Rules of Appellate Procedure also confer appellate jurisdiction over non-final interlocutory appeals pursuant to
A. Interlocutory Appeals of Right. Appeals from the following interlocutory orders are taken as a matter of right by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk within thirty (30) days after the nоtation of the interlocutory order in the Chronological Case Summary:
* * *
3. To compel the delivery or assignment of any securities, evidence of debt, documents or things in action. . . .
Ball State maintains it has a common law lien ovеr Daughter‘s transcript and may not be compelled to release the transcript, absent payment of the unpaid tuition balance. Generally, a “lien” is a claim which one person holds on another‘s property as a security for an indebtedness оr charge.” Hubble v. Berry, 180 Ind. 513, 103 N.E. 328, 330 (1913); see also Black‘s Law Dictionary 1006 (10th ed. 2014) (defining lien as a “legal right or interest that a creditor has in another‘s property, lasting usually until a debt or duty that it secures is satisfied.“). Several types of liens have been codified in Indiana. See generally
In Indiana, a common law lien is “a lien agаinst real or personal property that is not: (1) a statutory lien; (2) a security interest created by agreement; or (3) a judicial lien obtained by legal or equitable process or proceedings.”
Here there is no questiоn that Ball State retains exclusive and independent posses-
II. The Merits of Ball State‘s Claim
Responding to Mother‘s motion to join Ball State as a supplemental defendant Ball State argued among other things that it “should not have to appear and defend this action or otherwise entangle itself in the domestic relations issues between the parties.” App. at 104. The trial court disagreed ruling that Ball State was an “indispensable remedy defendant” under the provisions of
This Court has not addressed the standard of review over a trial court‘s decision to join parties under
The rule governing joinder of parties does not set forth a rigid or mechanical formula for making the determination, but rather is designed to encouragе courts to apprise themselves of the practical considerations of each individual case in view of the policies underlying the rule. Therefore, we employ a fact-sensitive, flexible analysis. The burden of proving that joinder is necessary rests with the party asserting it.
Id. at 920 (citations omitted). We now adopt this standard and its reasoning.
Here, Mother argues Ball State was a necessary party because she would not otherwise be entitled to complete relief on her petition to modify support which included payment from Father of “future college expenses” and payment “to Ball State of unpaid fees.” App. at 96. To be clear: the payment Mother was requesting was from Father. It was Mother‘s burden to demonstrate that joinder of Ball State wаs necessary to resolve her claims. Mother does not contend Ball State was necessary to resolve the amount of unpaid fees owed to Ball State. Joinder then turns on whether Ball State was a necessary party to determine future educаtion expenses. The record is devoid of any evidence that Mother attempted to obtain financial information from IUN or any other source before seeking to join Ball State in this action. There is also nothing in the record before us suggesting that without Ball State as a party, Mother would be unable to provide the trial court information relating to future college expenses at IUN or any other institution for that matter. “Neither the rules of trial procedure nor the dissolution of marriage statutes are so brоad as to require third parties to be dragged into marriage dissolution pro-
Conclusion
We reverse the trial court‘s order granting Mother‘s Motion to Join Supplemental Defendant and Order Release of Transcript. We remand this cause with instructions to thе trial court to enter an appropriate order dismissing Ball State University from this action.
RUSH, C.J., and DICKSON, DAVID and MASSA, JJ., concur.