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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.