ILNews

COA affirms remand to prior judge over father’s objection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A special judge appointed in a paternity case ruled correctly that matters in the case remanded by the Court of Appeals should be heard by the prior judge who heard the evidence, the appellate court held in a second appeal on the matter.

In In re the Paternity of V.A., (Minor Child), R.A. v. B.Y., 39A04-1310-JP-512, father R.A. requested a change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B), which was granted. He appealed a prior trial court ruling to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Jefferson Circuit Special Judge James B. Morris took the case after Judge Ted Todd granted father’s change-of-judge motion. When Morris received the matter on remand, he ruled that Trial Rule 63(A) requires a judge who hears evidence to make all rulings relating to that evidence.

“On appeal, Father contends that Trial Rules 76(B) and 63(A) conflict, and his right to a change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B) trumps Trial Rule 63(A)’s preference for the judge who heard the evidence,” Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote for the panel. “We conclude that the rules do not conflict; rather, they govern different aspects of Father’s case —  Father’s change-of-judge request under Trial Rule 76(B) applies prospectively to his modification petition, and Trial Rule 63(A) operates retroactively to ensure that the remanded issues are considered by the judge who heard the evidence, Judge Todd. We affirm.”

A separate appellate panel heard another appeal from the same case, affirming Morris’ denial of father’s motion to correct error and an order reinstating his visitation time with a child he had in 2003. He and the child’s mother never married, and their relationship ended in 2011.

In In Re: The Paternity of V.A., a Minor Child, R.A. Father v. B.Y., Mother, 39A01-1307-JP-304, as prior appeals were pending, father filed a motion to modify support and custody the same day that Morris assumed jurisdiction. Morris denied the motion on the basis that he lacked jurisdiction to rule.

“(W)e cannot hold the court abused its discretion when it denied Father’s motion to correct error,” Judge Melissa May wrote for the panel in this appeal. “We accordingly affirm the denial of Father’s Motion to Correct Error regarding the dismissal of his petition to modify custody and support.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT