Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a man’s challenge to the denial of his motion to correct error regarding the introduction of a survey reflecting a property line by his neighbor. The case was the result of a boundary dispute.
Paul and Linda Spear sued Clifford and Judith Garrett, and the Spears sought to quite title. Both filed motions for summary judgment, and the trial court ruled in favor of the Spears. The Feb. 6, 2013, order stated the Spears are to obtain and properly record a survey reflecting the boundary line along the fence line of the two properties. The COA previously affirmed the Feb. 6 order.
The Spears filed a notice of compliance with that order, and the trial court made a chronological case summary entry May 16, 2014, stating they complied with the February order. The Garretts filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.
“Garrett asserts there is no evidence to support a finding that Spear complied with the trial court’s order, but Garrett makes this argument without pointing to anything obligating Spear to prove his compliance in the first place. The trial court’s February 6 order does not contain any direction that the parties submit evidence of their compliance with that order, and Garrett fails to identify an Indiana Trial Rule or local rule that requires a party to affirmatively prove compliance with a court order,” Judge Margret Robb wrote in Clifford Garrett and Judith Ann Garrett v. Paul T. Spear and Linda Spear, 23A01-1407-PL-277.
“From our perspective, Spear’s notice to the trial court is sufficient to support the trial court’s CCS entry reflecting compliance with the court’s order. If Garrett believes that Spear has failed to comply with the court’s February 6 summary judgment order, it is incumbent upon him to enforce the judgment in further proceedings.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.