Arlinda E. Greener v. Douglas W. Biehl and Donovan E. Brunsman (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 7, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CT-2386
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be May 07 2020, 5:38 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES Steven E. Ripstra Marc Tawfik Ripstra Law Office McNeely Stephenson Jasper, Indiana New Albany, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Arlinda E. Greener, May, 7, 2020 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CT-2386 v. Appeal from the Dubois Superior Court Douglas W. Biehl and Donovan The Honorable Mark R. E. Brunsman, McConnell, Judge Appellees-Defendants Trial Court Cause No. 19D01-1507-CT-362

May, Judge.

[1] Arlinda E. Greener appeals the denial of her motion to correct error. We

affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 1 of 6 Facts and Procedural History [2] Late at night on July 17, 2013, Douglas Biehl and Donovan Brunsman finished

raking hay with two of Brunsman’s tractors in a field near Huntingburg. They

had to travel a short distance on Highway 161 to arrive where they intended to

store the tractors for the night. Brunsman exited the field and drove his tractor

onto the highway, and Biehl followed him in the other tractor. Greener was

driving in her car on the highway when she approached the back of the tractor

driven by Biehl. The tractor Biehl was driving lacked a slow-moving vehicle

sign, but it had a flashing light on the back. When Biehl slowed his tractor to

turn left, Greener rear-ended Biehl.

[3] Greener sued Biehl and Brunsman. She alleged she “was injured and damaged

as a direct and proximate result of the careless and negligent operation by

Defendant Douglas W. Biehl of a tractor and farm implement owned,

equipped, and maintained by Defendant Donovan E. Brunsman[.]” (App. Vol.

II at 11.) The trial court held a jury trial on July 31 and August 1, 2019. The

jury returned a verdict finding Greener primarily responsible for the accident.

On August 26, 2019, Greener filed a “Motion for Relief from an Adverse

Judgment and to Correct Errors.” She stated the following grounds for relief:

1. The jury’s verdict should be set aside because there was, and is, a latent lack of evidence to support the verdict;

2. The verdict is contrary to the uncontradicted evidence;

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 2 of 6 3. There is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference to be adduced from the evidence to support an essential element of the defense claims; and

4. The evidence points unerringly to a conclusion not reached by the jury.

5. Further, in addition to the verdict not being sustained by sufficient evidence, it is also contrary to law.

(App. Vol. III at 68.) The motion did not contain any additional explanatory

paragraphs, and it was not accompanied by a memorandum. On September 10,

2019, Biehl and Brunsman filed a response to the motion. The trial court

summarily denied the motion on September 12, 2019. 1

Discussion and Decision [4] Greener purports to have brought her motion pursuant to both Indiana Trial

Rule 59 and Trial Rule 60. Trial Rule 59 governs motions to correct error, and

filing a Trial Rule 59 motion is a prerequisite to appeal if a party is claiming

that a jury verdict was excessive or inadequate. Ind. T.R. 59(A)(2). Trial Rule

60 is meant to address “only the procedural, equitable grounds for justifying

relief from the legal finality of a final judgment, not the legal merits of the

judgment.” Barton v. Barton, 47 N.E.3d 368, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans.

1 Greener’s appendix does not include a copy of an order denying her motion to correct error. Rather, the appendix includes a copy of the chronological case summary with an entry indicating the trial court denied the motion.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 3 of 6 denied. We therefore evaluate Greener’s motion pursuant to Trial Rule 59,

which is the proper vehicle for challenging the legal merits of a final judgment.

See In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 741 (Ind. 2010) (declining to

entertain challenge to merits of trial court’s final order when challenge made by

Trial Rule 60 motion).

[5] Our standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to correct error is

well settled.

We generally review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion. Jocham v. Sutliff, 26 N.E.3d 82, 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law. In re Marriage of Dean, 787 N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. However, where the issues raised in the motion are questions of law, the standard of review is de novo. City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227, 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.

Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Watson, 70 N.E.3d 380, 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

[6] Biehl and Brunsman argue Greener’s motion “lacked any argument or

application of the facts for the trial court to consider and was properly denied.”

(Appellee’s Br. at 9.) Indiana Trial Rule 59(D) provides that any error raised in

a motion to correct error “shall be stated in specific rather than general terms

and shall be accompanied by a statement of facts and grounds upon which the

error is based.” (emphases added.) As our Indiana Supreme Court has

explained, “Bald general assertions of error do not constitute substantial

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 4 of 6 compliance with our rules.” Young v. Duckworth, 394 N.E.2d 123, 125 (Ind.

1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 906 (1980), reh’g denied, 445 U.S. 973 (1980). “The

motion to correct error is intended to focus the trial court on important alleged

errors in the trial court proceedings and to provide the court with an

opportunity to reflect on and correct those errors, thereby eliminating the need

for the parties to take an appeal.” Motion to Correct Error, 22A Ind. Prac.,

Civil Trial Practice § 37.1 (2d ed.).

[7] Greener filed a motion to correct error. However, her motion did not include a

statement of facts. Greener did not cite to any authority to support her

assertion that the verdict was contrary to law. She did not specifically identify

any uncontradicted evidence the verdict was contrary too, nor did she explain

how the evidence pointed only to the conclusion opposite that reached by the

jury. She also did not allege or put forth any new material evidence.

Consequently, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Greener’s motion to correct error. See Anderson v. Ind. St. Emp. App. Comm., 360

N.E.2d 1040, 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977) (holding appellant’s motion to correct

error was “not sufficiently specific to have presented any error to the trial

court”), reh’g denied; see also D.A.Y. Investments LLC v. Lake Co., 106 N.E.3d 500,

506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying

motion to correct error because the motion did not demonstrate the party was

entitled to relief), reh’g denied, trans. denied.

Conclusion Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 5 of 6 [8] Greener’s motion to correct error did not comply with Trial Rule 59. It did not

state the challenged error in specific terms, nor did it identify any facts or

grounds supporting the requested relief. Because her motion was inadequate to

notify the court of the errors alleged or demonstrate she was entitled to relief,

we cannot hold the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion.

Therefore, we affirm the trial court.

[9] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 6 of 6