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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT