Trial rules require sufficient postage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has a simple message for litigants: if you are filing anything by certified mail, make sure to put enough postage on your paperwork. Otherwise, don’t expect to use that insufficient postage as an excuse to get around trial rules and court deadlines.

In Melanie Webster v. Walgreen Co., No. 55A01-1110-CT-442, the court affirmed a judgment by Morgan Superior Judge Jane Spencer Craney that denied a woman’s motion to amend the filing date of her complaint in order to comply with the filing deadline.

Melanie Webster filed a complaint against Walgreens after she slipped and fell Dec. 17, 2008, outside the Mooresville store, alleging the business was negligent in failing to remove ice and snow from a sidewalk. Four days before the two-year statute of limitations expired and barred the suit, Webster’s attorney, C. Stuart Carter, weighed the envelope with the complaint, summons, appearance and filing fee to send by certified mail. But the postal service reweighed the envelope and determined an additional 17 cents was owed. The Morgan County Clerk’s Office declined to pay the extra postage and the envelope was returned a few days after the statute of limitations had run.

After Carter reweighed and sent the envelope back, the local clerk’s office stamped it filed Dec. 22, 2010. Walgreens objected to a request to amend the filing date to when the envelope had initially been sent within the two-year window, and after a hearing the trial court denied Webster’s motion and found the filing untimely.

On appeal, the three-judge panel held that “mailing” for purposes of the Indiana Trial Rules requires the sender to affix sufficient postage, and since that didn’t happen here the original complaint was untimely.

The appellate judges cited Comer v. Gohil, 664 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), a medical malpractice case in which the panel determined that “affixing a sufficient amount of postage to the envelope was a matter wholly in [the plaintiff’s] hands” and that mailing the complaint with insufficient postage did not result in the complaint being filed. The Indiana Supreme Court issued a similar holding about filing fees three years earlier.

The court noted that Webster presents no authority suggesting that sending a complaint with insufficient postage constitutes “mailing” for purposes of Trial Rule 5, and she did not show public policy favors allowing her case to proceed.



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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. 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?

  3. 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"

  4. 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?

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