ILNews

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).
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT