Case Information
*1 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANTS A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLEE Douglas M. Grimes Eric Oden Clark Douglas M. Grimes, PC Munster, Indiana Gary, Indiana
I N T H E
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Ronald Protho and March 14, 2017 Gwen Protho, Court of Appeals Case No. 45A04-1608-SC-1815 Appellants-Respondents,
Appeal from the Lake Superior v. Court The Honorable Elizabeth F.
Tawanna Brown, Tavitas, Judge Appellee-Claimant Trial Court Cause No.
45D03-1605-SC-4 Baker, Judge.
On May 1, 2015, Tawanna Brown purchased a property in Gary (the Property)
at a tax sale for $300. The property was occupied by Ronald and Gwen Protho. On February 23, 2016, Brown filed a notice of claim seeking immediate possession of the Property. On August 5, 2016, following a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting immediate possession of the Property to Brown and setting a future hearing on damages. On August 10, 2016, the Prothos filed a motion to stay the proceedings and a notice of appeal. On August 15, 2016, the eviction of the Prothos occurred pursuant to the August 5 order. On August 17, 2016, the trial court granted the motion to stay the proceedings. The Prothos now appeal. The only argument raised by the Prothos on appeal is that the trial court erred
by waiting to rule on the motion to stay until August 17, which was two days after the eviction had already occurred. The Prothos offer no citations to authority supporting their contention that the trial court ruled in an untimely fashion. Trial Rule 62(B) provides that the ruling on a motion to stay while an appeal is pending is solely within the discretion of the trial court. And Trial Rule 6(D) provides that when a written motion is filed, at least five days must lapse before a hearing on that motion is set, presumably so that the opposing party has an opportunity to respond. Here, the Prothos’ motion was filed on August 10 and, when an intervening weekend is excluded, five days had lapsed *3 on August 17 — the day on which the trial court ruled on the motion. Under these circumstances, we see no error in the timing of the trial court’s ruling. Although the Prothos ask that we reverse the trial court’s order granting immediate possession of the Property to Brown and reinstate the Prothos’ tenancy, they offer absolutely no argument with respect to the propriety of the order or the substance of the litigation. Therefore, we decline to dispose of the case in this fashion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and remanded for further
proceedings.
Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
[1] Marion Williams, who owned the property directly abutting the Property, intervened in Brown’s claim. Williams is not participating in this appeal.
[2] Even if we had found error in the timeliness of the trial court’s ruling, we are hard pressed to determin e what remedy could be offered to the Prothos.