1-year limit toll not extended by appeal

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The one-year limit to file a motion for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) is not from the time an appeals court rules on the matter, but must be made within one year after the trial court enters its order, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today in an issue of first impression.

Indiana’s appellate courts haven’t addressed the argument that the one-year limit is calculated from the date of any appellate decision or that an appeal extends or tolls that one-year limit for motions filed pursuant to T.R. 60(B)(1)-(4). Pro se appellant Luiz Alves made this argument in his appeal of the denial of his T.R.60(B) motion for relief from judgment in Luiz Alves v. Old National Bank f/k/a St. Joseph Capital Bank, No. 71A03-0909-CV-416.

Alves claimed to have newly discovered evidence and a fraud argument against the bank and filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to T.R. 60(B)(2) in June 2009. This was nearly two years after the trial court entered summary judgment in Old National Bank’s favor in Alves’ suit against the bank. He sued in 2006 claiming the bank owed him a duty, it worked with his former business partner to undermine his role in the company, breached its duty to him, and the breach caused him to suffer financial ruin and face possible deportation.

Alves appealed the trial court’s decision, in which the Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2008. The trial court denied his 2009 T.R. 60(B) motion.

He claimed the one-year limit to file the motion for relief from judgment started after the appellate decision. Because the issue hasn’t come up in state appellate courts yet, the Court of Appeals looked to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1336 (7th Cir. 1972). That ruling held a motion can be made only within one year after the judgment has been entered and the taking of an appeal doesn’t extend this one-year period.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 is nearly identical to the state’s rule, and like the federal rule, the Court of Appeals concluded that an appeal does not extend the one-year limit contained in T.R. 60(B).


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?