ILNews

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.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT