*1 HALSEY, Appellant- L. Defendant, and, Carolyn C. SMELTZER Individually parents and as Lyndsey Sarah Smelt
zer, Appellees-Plaintiffs.
Court LLP, Bunnell, Suedhoff, Hunt Indiana, Attorney Appel-
Fort Wayne, lant. *2 $3,777.85 Ulmer, 1, 1999, Stegelmann,
John D. Bodie J. to Ulmer. On March Yoder, Ainlay, & Buckingham, Ulmer Smeltzers for Indiana, LLP, Goshen, Attorneys Ap- injury, fоr emotional pellees. anguish and In chattels. addi-
tion, settlement talks regarding continued presented by claims the Smeltzers. OPINION 7, 1998, May On Ulmer wrote to Meridian BAKER, Judge Smeltzer, regarding Carolyn the claims of Appellant-defendant Halsey and included a therein was claim for loss interlocutory appeal brings an from the clothing items in the amount of $175. his Motion to trial court’s denial of Trans- Further, May 7 letter included for the against by fer Venue a case him first time for claims to other appellees-plaintiffs Carolyn including Scott’s Halsey Specifically, Smeltzer. cassette tapes, some children’s the Smeltzers’ claims two car seats. Meridian informed Ulmer ancillary tо their cause action based compensation for Carolyn Smeltzer’s collision, upon and that automobile sub- clothing was in the included check issued sectiоns of Trial regarding Rule col- 22, 1999, in February. Halsey March On lisions and the defendant’s his motion transfer the apply should to determine his home 19, May the correct On venue. fol- is lowing a the trial hearing, court denied
the motion to transfer the case to Noble County. Halsey brings FACTS now this interloc- utory appeal. 17,1998, January Halsey On was operаt- ing a motor vehicle on Road 200
North Noble AND resi- DISCUSSION DECISION Halsey stop dence. a disregarded sign at I. Standard Review the intersection of Road 5 and State Coun- When reviеw North, we a trial court’s ty causing Road 200 a collisionwith order on a motion to vehicle dismiss for incorrect driven 12(B)(3), venue under T.R. our standard is resides Elkhart Scott’s wife abusе of Banjo Corp. discretion. injuries in Pem sustained the collision. bor, Subsequently, retained 1999). We will find abuse of discretion attorney represent John Ulmer to them in “clearly the trial decision court’s is pursuing for personal against logic and effect of the facts and property damage against Halsey. Initial court, circumstancеs before the or if the discussions between and Halsey’s Ulmer misinterpreted trial court has the law.” insurance company, Meridian Mutual In- Id. (Meridian), surance Company were direct- at achieving ed settlement the Smelt- Halsey’s II. Claim zers’ for property damage. On February 1998, Meridian and Ulmer We initially note that Ind. Trial Rule agreement reached provides to the val- that: vehicle, venued, commenced, ue conclud- and decided in ed the Smeltzers would court in any county that, receive the ...” еxcept $3,062.85. addition, motion, sum Smelt- court shall order case trans- received zers rental car ferred if $540 the court finds that items of Carolyn’s Oounty loss of lies other than that in $175 clothing. Thus, February Meridian the case was sent check the total amount of then criteria that, (A)(l)-(9), are We in this of which note provisions each essentially requesting Banjo at 431. equally preferred. to mean that trial court must preferred venue designates priority among the assign criteria greater percentage prior- agree that such included
of individual defendants
*3
ity system would
of
eliminate some choices
resides,
any
or ...
indi-
where
complaint
given
venue in a
case. We
preferred
T.R.
so named resides.”
vidual defendant
agree as well that we have
T.R.
75(A)(2)
that
can
venue
75(A)
ambiguous
to
be
to the
county
the
or
also
where
land
language about causes which “relate to”
the
thereof is located or
chattels
part
some
Diesel,
or
at
land
chattel. See
634 N.E.2d
part
regularly
or
thereof
located
some
are
However, Halsey
to
wishes us
find
complaint
a claim
kept,
or
the
includes
it
ambiguous
rule
the entire
does
relating
or
to
land
injuries
thereto
such
prioritize
pre-
not
the nine criteria
75(A)(3)
pro-
T.R.
or chattels.”
venue, and that we cannot do.
ferred
county
in “the
vides for
occurred, if
or
where the accident
cоllision
Instead,
proce
that
we observe
claim for
complaint
the
includes a
75(A)
T.R.
the
dural rules such as
have
vehi-
to the
of a motor
related
binding
force аnd effect of law
same
cle....”
AgMax,
as
Inc. v. Coun
force
a statute.
Inc.,
Co-op.,
661 N.E.2d
trymark
primary
that the
contends
in
(Ind.Ct.App.1996). Accordingly,
1261
are the
of the Smeltzers’ lawsuit
interpreting
meaning
procedural
the
of a
damage
to
injury claim of
rule, it
to look to established
appropriate
automobile,
al-
which was
issue
statutory construction.
principles of
John
the action was
ready settled before
(Ind.Ct.
State,
v.
708 N.E.2d
915
son
Thus,
county
that his
instance,
App.1999), trans.
In this
denied.
county in which the
or the
rule of
we must observe the cardinal
statu
place
took
the
collision
should be
construction, namely
“a
tory
that
statute
venue,
relying upon T.R.
unambiguous on its face
clear and
need
(A)(3). Furthermore,
he maintains
interpreted by the
and cannot be
court.”
the
claims were
Thomas,
446 N.E.2d
Grove
to make the Smeltzers’
subterfuge
as a
(Ind.Ct.Aрp.1983).
T.R.
county preferred
venue under
75(A)(2).
unambiguously
T.R.
allows
He
this court to
urges
to be
should for
case
proper
the rule to mean
kept when a
subject
regularly
chattel are
claims or
where
depend
primary
the
to
addition, Halsey
or
of a claim is for
claim
action.
(where
id. at 643
vehicle is
most
re-
chattel.2 Seе
us to our
recent decision
refers
in
venue,
involved in collisions
two counties on
change
in which we not-
garding
may bring action in the
day, plaintiff
nor
same
ed that T.R.
is “neithеr clear
Co.,
kept).
vehicle is
No lan
Diesel
Inc. v.
where
unambiguous.”
Constr.
any
Cotten,
guage
attempts
rule
to establish
1994).1
among
pre-
nine criteria
priority
Diesel,
vаlidity
determining
court
its
as
criterion
we ruled that if the trial
1. In
"a
exists between
finds that
sufficient nexus
ferred venue.
action,”
underlying
land and the
would be sufficient to establish
liberty
ignore
the strict
2. We
not at
purposes
land” for
of T.R.
"related to the
was
prioritiza-
there is to be a
letter of T.R.
If
Diesel,
75(A)(2).
How-
properly determined that Pembor’s a preferred residence was venue be- to chattels was
claim and the chattels were
in that
kept
Wendy FRANKLIN, as Guardiаn
county. Banjo,
Judgment affirmed. BENOCK, Lisa Clark Board of Commis sioners of Knox Citizens SULLIVAN, J., concurs. Bank, Appellees/Cross-Appellants-De STATON, J., opinion. dissents with fendants.
STATON, Judge, dissenting Court of I dissent the procedural scales justice tipped have been wrong direction. Significant litigation Rehearing Denied March present dispute has relegated been to a position contemplated by Rule 75.
The literal ignores obedience to
spirit purpose of Rule 75 which is to
promote speedy justice. convenient
The dispute roots of this are buried A of a motor vehicle. colli-
sion or accident of two occurring vehicles settled car,
damage to his rental