Chafin v. Grayson

474 аnd promptly ascertaining the character 60(B) motion, Trial Rule ruling

In on a mortgage. of legal consequences the al to "balance trial court party Judgment mov was entered accordance leged injustice suffered perfected of the and he then ing request, for relief interests Goldsmith's society general in the winning party judgment and no of foreclosure. Chelo finality litigation." (quoting entertaining of Id. Goldsmith's Agency, 551 N.E.2d vich v. & Silvian 60(B) motion, trial was unable to Ruff However, alleged injustice suffered 890, "balance (Ind.Ct.App.1990)). 892 from under motion for relief the interests of the the movant 60(B) may not be used winning party," as the movant and Indiana Trial Rule appeal. a direct Snider as a substitute for the same. winning party were Goldsmith (Ind.Ct. Gaddis, 322, v. 413 N.E.2d cir- showing exceptional ‍‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍has made no of App.1980). cumstances that would invoke the trial equitable powers court's under enti claims that he is Goldsmith 60(B). entered at to relief frоm the tled (1) according to Indiana his behest because Affirmed. 32-8-11-4, money a purchase section Code over other mortgage priority is entitled to SHARPNACK, J., DARDEN, J., (2) liens; defendants Pinnacle concur. statutory prior

Averys dispute did not (3) mоney mortgage; ity purchase of Trial appear did not at a the Hickersons 60(B) hearing dispute the statuto money ry priority purchase mortgage. of a argument for two rea Goldsmith's fails 60(B) First, Trial Rule does not sons. whereby рarty may be provide vehicle CHAFIN, Appellant- Leann G. of law. afforded relief from his mistake Defendant, 1288, Ault, v. 749 N.E.2d Mason Second, reh'g. denied. 60(B), is on under Trial Rule the burden GRAYSON, Cleveland E. grounds for relief. the movant to establish Appellеe-Plaintiff. Indiana Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. North of No. 18A02-0102-CV-78. America, 276, (Ind.Ct.App. 734 N.E.2d 2000), Thus, it trans. denied. Appeals Court of of Indiana. incumbent the defendants estab Jan. 2002. lish lack of entitlement to re Goldsmith's lief. 60(B)

Finally, Trial Rule affords in extraordinary relief cireumstances any are of fault or not the result the movant. negligence part on the Joseph's Hospital, v. St. Whitaker (Ind.Ct.App.1981). N.E.2d 744 n. 6 Here, petitioned Goldsmith the trial court mortgage for foreclosure of his without Miller, Seifert,

Patrick L. Christie A. Goodin, ‍‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍Miller, In- Kraege, Abernathy & IN, Attorneys Appellant. dianapolis, Ragains, Ragains, Patrick R. & Smith Anderson, IN, Attorney for Appellee. ,

OPINION

ROBB, Judge. the trial court's appeals

Leann Chafin in a motion to correct errors favor grant of Grayson setting aside the of Cleveland trial in ordering verdict and new action Chaf- Grayson's negligence in. We remand.

Issue review, our raises two issues for

Chaffin dispositive: whether one of which we find special the trial failed to make find- by Indiana Trial ings of fact as 59(J)(7). History and Procedural Facts February The facts reveal Grаyson and were involved Chafin vehicle accident on State ‍‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍Road motor pursuant new trial to Indiana accident, Muncie, Prior to the Indiana. installer, 59(J). traveling was Grayson, carpet a Motion to considering When сargo 85 in a van north on State request for new Road Correct Errors and large carpet. with several rolls of loaded trial, governed by a trial court is Indiana Chafin, automobile, in a small traveled 59(J)(7), provides which in exited on the Bypass from the Muncie part: grant court shall a new trial "[The 35, ramp halting stop Road at a to State a if it determines that the verdict of non- Road sign. order to travel State ... as advisory jury is erroneous South, had to turn left andcross 35 Chafin by contrary supported to or not the evi North,. two lanes of Road 35 As the State judge The trial sits as a dence...." crossing turned left the northbound Chafin juror" "thirteenth and must determine 85, "t- lanes of State Road her vеhicle was whether in the minds of reasonable men cargo by Gray- the van driven boned" contrary a verdict should have been resulting The collision one of son. caused Mach., Inc. v. reached. Precision Screen Grayson large carpet the rolls of to strike Hixson, 68, (Ind.Ct.App. 711 N.E.2d 70 Thereafter, Grayson from behind. re- 1999). judge, The trial as a "thirteenth injuries by phy- ceived treatment for his a juror," along hears the with the case sician, massage therapist, and several jury, observes the witnesses for their chiropractors. wisdom, credibility, intelligence and 9, 1998, Consequently, July Grayson determines whether the verdiet is negligence complaint against filed a Chafin weight the the Id. evidence. Grayson in the Delaware Cireuit Court. claimed that the medical bills he sustained granted Onee the trial court has $46,083.38. in the accident totaled The trial, a new we will reverse this decision jury Grayson found 45% at fault and Chaf- only for an abuse of discretion. Schuh v. in 55% fault for the automobile accident. at Silcox, 926, (Ind.Ct.App. 581 N.E.2d 927 Grayson's The calculated total dam- 1991). An abuse of discretion will be $9,804.00. at ages The trial court entered found when the trial court's actiоn is Grayson favor of for logic the and effect of the facts and $5,392.20. 18, 2000, Gray- On December circumstances before it and the inferences son filed a motion to correct errors with may drawn therefrom. DeVitto be allеging the trial court that the verdict was Bros., Inc., 528, rio v. Werker 634 N.E.2d inadequate as a matter of law and total (Ind.Ct.App.1994). 530 We review the rec $9,804.00 damage contrary amount of was (a) if: only ord to see the trial court 2000, 28, to the evidеnce. On December (b) discretion; flagrant injus abused its trial Chafin filed court a state- occurred; (c) tice has or the appellant has opposition Grayson's ment in to motion presented very strong case for relief 12, 2001, January correct errors. On granting from the trial court's order a new granted trial court Grayson's motion to trial. 711 N.E.2d at 70. Howev Hixson, and ordered a new trial. errors correct er, reweigh we neither the evidence nor This ensued. judge credibility of the Id. witnesses. Discussion and Decision The trial court has broad discretion to

I. Standard of Review grant deny or a motion for a trial. new 59(J) Schuh, 581 N.E.2d at 927. The trial granted granting The trial court court's action a new trial is Grayson's given strong presumption of correctness. motion to correct errors and ordered a (Ind. Mendus, 26, (Ind. McKenzie, v. 661 N.E.2d Keith 576 ‍‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍N.E.2d Ct.App.1991), purpose trans. denied. trans. denied. The Ct.App.1996), special findings provide of fact is tо Therefore, duty it is our to affirm the parties reviewing court with trial unless it trial court's order for a new of, theory the trial court's decision. that the clearly demonstrated Chaffin DeVittorio, 634 N.E.2d at 531. The find court abused its discretion. trial ings may lоng summarize the evidence so Special Findings IIL. of Fact summary complete enough as the first contends that trial Chaffin appellate facilitate review. Malacina v. setting erred in aside the ver- (Ind.Ct. Malacina, 616 N.E.2d spe- a new trial because granting dict and App.1993). by Trial Rule findings cial of fact 12, 2001, January The trial court's order 59(J)(7) agree. were insufficient. We on Motion to pro- Chaffin's Correct Errors 59(J)(7): Under that: pertinent part vides granted a new trial because the When Judge, now the Comes Court Senior verdict, findings or do not ac- Cole, Betty and finds that Shelton evidence, with the the cord shall Motion for New should [Chaffin's] Trial findings upon each special make be, faсt hereby granted of and is for the reason or the material issue element claim of supported that the verdict was not upon new trial or which a defense compara- sufficient evidence either of grantеd. finding Such shall indicate damages. tive fault or against whether the decision is the Appendix at Appellant's 7-8. of the evidence or whether it is weight satisfy The trial court's order does not contrary to or not clearly erroneous as requirements the of Indiana Trial Rule evidence; if the deci- supported by the 59(J)(7) in that it fails to contain sufficient weight sion is found to be the of necessary to review findings for this court evidence, findings shall relate the grаnt Grayson's of motion to correct opposing evidence to supporting Therefore, pursuant errors. to Indiana a new trial is upon each issue 37(B),1 suspend consid Appellate Rule we granted; if the decision is found to be forty- appeal period eration of this of contrary to or not erroneous as (45) days opinion five from the date of this evidence, findings supported by the and remand this cause to the Delawarе why shall show en- Court with instructions to the Superior the evidence. upon tered Grayson's motion receiving judge to review added). (Emphasis errors, if hearing hold a to correct requirements necessary specific The deemed and to make procedural Fact Findings pursuant 59(J)(7) of outlined in Trial Rule have been 59(J)MT) "paramount," characterized as to be filed with the Clerk no later than entering requisite findings Appeals Court of Indiana proсess of (45) days from the date of this time-consuming." forty-five "arduous and State as 37(B) authority. Appellate on the trial court's 1. We note that Indiana limitation specifically provides Unless the order other- provides that: wise, Agen- Appeal may ap- the trial court or Administrative The Court on dismiss the peal prejudice, authority remand the re- cy without unlimited shall obtain court, mand. case to the trial or remand case retaining jurisdiction, or without while with motive." 711 N.E.2d at jurisdiction improper retain over this or other opinion. We Kluba, will resume consideration of the case and also 71. See Sherman findings after the are trans. de merits of the N.E.2d nied, in which the found the defen filed. аt fault but as in Hixson ren dant 100% Remanded with instructions. in an amount less damage dered a award in undisputed expenses than the medical KIRSCH, concurs. J. curred. The court held that verdiet "clear SULLIVAN, J., opinion. dissents ly contrary to the evidеnce." erroneous as SULLIVAN, Judge, dissenting. at 704. N.E.2d agree majority opinion I with the simplistic It is too facile and to rubber of the motion to granting the trial court's stamp grant a trial court's of motion to may correct errors be affirmed be- not correct errors the time-worn shibbo- "findings" wholly cause the made are inad- weight leth that the verdict "is equate. of the evidence." See Ind.Trial Rule Nevertheless, 59(J)(7). I not would terminate our Application prinсiple of this Rather, inquiry with that determination. fraught problems subject and is record, I upon based evidence of would merely abuse where the trial court dis- ruling of the trial court and reverse the agrees jury with the wisdom of the verdict jury order reinstatement ‍‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‍of the verdict reweigh and wishes to the evidence. and the entered thereon. My judicial concern with the "thirteenth regard, appropriate In this I believe it to juror" principle materially сhanged has not my strong concerning state reservations Grabler, 147 my since dissent in Collins v. frequently misapplied application (1970). Ind.App. 263 N.E.2d 201 I juror" principle. the so-called "thirteenth merely would now reiterate the substancе my In a trial view court should utilize the jury of what I said then. A verdiet should principle only when a has been not be vacated the trial court unless it jury entered verdict which is con contrary Accordingly, to law. I would trary to law. Precisiоn Unlike Screen ruling reverse the of the trial court here Machines, Hixson, Inc. v. 711 N.E.2d 68 and would remand with instructions to re- majority cited jury instate the verdict. here, contrary verdict is not Hixson, law. the matter of defendant's issue,

liability jury's zero damage "contrary award was to the evidence, erroneous,

uncontradicted inadequate and so as to establish that the by passion, was motivated prejudice

Case Details

Case Name: Chafin v. Grayson

Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals

Date Published: Jan 18, 2002

Citation: 761 N.E.2d 474

Docket Number: 18A02-0102-CV-78

Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.