Court clarifies rules relating to filing deadlines

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Filing deadlines are important for attorneys in any case.

But some recent confusion in a child custody appeal brought to light some uncertainty about how the state’s appellate rules compute some of those deadlines when “non-business days” or “calendar days” are applied to the motions practices before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

The Indiana Supreme Court issued an order Jan. 14 that delves into those issues and offers some guidance for attorneys whose court filings may hinge on a single day when determining if they’re timely or not.

Justices issued the order in the case of Allan C. Bir v. Cynthia Bir, No. 06A01-1009-DR-449, which involves a post-divorce child custody dispute that’s on appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The father had filed an emergency request for transfer in November, and the mother on Dec. 10 filed her response to that request.

But following that, Allan C. Bir and his attorneys sought leave to file a reply in support of the earlier motion for emergency transfer and that’s where the appellate rules overlapped and created confusion for the attorneys representing the father.

The mother filed the document Dec. 10, and the father filed a reply request on Dec. 21 – one day past the date the clerk’s office determined was the deadline according to the Indiana Appellate Rules 25 and 34(D).

Determining the father’s reply was untimely, the clerk’s office refused to file it but the attorneys then asked for permission to file a belated document in the case. The rules at issue are 25(C) regarding an automatic extension of an “additional three days from the date of deposit in the mail or with the carrier,” as well as 25(B) that discusses computing time as “non-business days” and 34(D) which says replies must be filed within five days of service of the response.

Specifically, the attorneys for Allan Bir questioned whether “non-business days” or “calendar days” should be applied to the deadlines in this case.

“Appellant contended that the rule was unclear on this point and, therefore, he should be permitted to file his motion belated if the Clerk’s interpretation of the rules was correct,” the Supreme Court order says. “Appellant’s counsel also suggested that ‘[i]t would be a great benefit to appellate practitioners for this Court to issue a published order clarifying the operation of Rules 25 and Rule 34(D).”

Following that suggestion, the court published the order that clarifies how 25(B) and (C) operate and relate to determining a due date on a Rule 34(D) motion. Justice Steven David didn’t participate in the matter as he’d handled the child custody issue at the trial level when still on the Boone Circuit bench.

“Specifically, when a response to a motion is served by mail, three calendar days are immediately added to the service date per Appellate Rule 25(C)…,” the court wrote. “The five non-business days expressed in Rule 34(D) are then counted from that third calendar day if it is a business day, or are counted from the next business day if the third day of the 'additional three days' falls on a non-business day.”

As applied to the Bir case, the justices determined that the clerk’s office correctly interpreted the appellate rules and refused to file the reply. But it granted the belated document filing as a result of the confusion.

Ultimately, the court declined the emergency transfer request in this case and left jurisdiction with the Indiana Court of Appeals.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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?

  2. 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"

  3. 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?

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

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."