Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court withdrew a case from a Marion Superior Court judge after he failed to rule on several of the lawsuit’s motions in a timely manner.
The state’s high court appointed Judge Kurt Eisgruber as special judge to replace Marion Superior Court Judge John Chavis in the case Mayhill v. Thoe, which was originally filed in November 2019.
“This case has been pending for over six years, with a jury trial scheduled for early 2026. Requiring Relators to proceed with a jury trial before a judge from whom this matter should have been removed is a severe hardship,” the high court wrote in a per curiam opinion.
In the original complaint, John Mayhill alleged that Gary Thoe had dissipated assets in the R. Thomas Mayhill Revocable Trust in a fashion not allowed by the trust and sought damages in his lawsuit.
The issues presented to the supreme court were whether the trial court failed to rule on several motions for more than 30 days, and as a result, whether the matter should’ve been withdrawn from the trial judge in response to the relators’ Trial Rule 53.1 praecipe.
Mark Crandley, the attorney for Thoe, declined to comment on the supreme court’s decision due to the case’s pending litigation.
The attorney for the three other relators did not respond to The Indiana Lawyer’s request for comment.
Representatives for the state and Chavis did not respond to requests for comment.
The relators in this case filed a Trial Rule 53.1 praecipe, identifying several motions that hadn’t been ruled on for more than 30 days, on June 16, 2024. This was four days after the trial court issued an order denying the relators’ motion to continue the jury trial.
While the trial clerk entered the praecipe on the CCS on June 16, the record doesn’t show whether she completed the process by forwarding it to the supreme court’s Chief Administrative Officer as Trial Rule 53.1.
For the next eight months, the trial court proceeded as though the praecipe had been forwarded and was awaiting the CAO’s determination.
The trial clerk later made a docket entry indicating she had forwarded the June 2024 praecipe to the CAO on March 19, 2025.
On April 7, 2025, the CAO issued an order declining to withdraw the case from the trial court judge.
The supreme court determined the relators were entitled to the appointment of a special judge under Trial Rule 53.1, saying that none of the exceptions to Rule 53.1 apply in this case, even the order that a party cannot wait until after an unfavorable judgment or ruling to enforce the trial rule.
In this case, the relators filed a praecipe four days after the trial court denied their motion to continue the jury trial, but the praecipe identified two pending summary judgment motions that hadn’t yet been ruled on.
Further, the court says the relators did everything expected of them when filing a Trial Rule 53.1 praecipe, adding that the rule does not require a party to follow up with the trial court, clerk, or CAO to check the status of the praecipe or otherwise investigate a delayed decision.
Finally, the court states that relators have met the burden of showing that denying their request to appoint a special judge would result in “extreme hardship.”
All justices concurred except for Chief Justice Loretta Rush, who did not participate in the decision.
The case is State of Indiana ex rel. Gary Thoe, et al. v. Marion Superior Court 5 and the Honorable John M.T. Chavis, 25S-OR-90.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.