Coby Maxwell v. Cori Sparrow, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Marlene Maxwellet. al

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 8, 2026
• Docket: 25A-CE-02947
• Status: Published
• Author: Judge Vaidik

Opinion

FILED Apr 08 2026, 8:48 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana Coby Maxwell, Appellant-Plaintiff

v.

Cori Sparrow, M & B Maxwell Farm, Inc., and Cori Sparrow, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Marlene Maxwell, Appellees-Defendants

April 8, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-CE-2947 Appeal from the Morgan Superior Court The Honorable Dakota VanLeeuwen, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 55D01-2508-CE-2120

Opinion by Judge Vaidik Judges Bailey and Scheele concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CE-2947 | April 8, 2026 Page 1 of 9 Vaidik, Judge.

Case Summary [1] According to Rule 4 of the Indiana Commercial Court Rules, any party may

file a “Notice Identifying Commercial Court Docket Case” if they want an

eligible case to be assigned to the Commercial Court Docket. Currently, there

are commercial courts in eleven Indiana counties. 1 Once an Identifying Notice

is filed, the other parties have 30 days to file a Notice of Refusal if they don’t

want the case assigned to the Commercial Court Docket. And Rule 4 is clear

about the consequences if a party doesn’t timely file a Notice of Refusal: “A

party that fails to timely file a Refusal Notice waives . . . [a]ny right to contest,

at any time during the proceedings or on appeal, the case’s eligibility for

assignment to the Commercial Court Docket.” Here, the defendants did not

timely file a Notice of Refusal and therefore waived their right to challenge the

assignment of this case to the Commercial Court Docket. We reverse the

Morgan Superior Court’s order to the contrary and remand with instructions for

this case to be transferred to the Commercial Court Docket of the closest

geographical commercial court, which is in adjoining Marion County.

1 Those counties are Allen, Hamilton, Madison, Floyd, Elkhart, Marion, Tippecanoe, Vanderburgh, Vigo, Lake, and St. Joseph. See Commercial Court Judges, https://www.in.gov/courts/iocs/committees/commercial-courts/ [https://perma.cc/TKV3-NNLX].

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CE-2947 | April 8, 2026 Page 2 of 9 Facts and Procedural History [2] On August 28, 2025, Coby Maxwell filed a “Complaint for Damages,

Injunctive Relief, [and] Declaratory Judgment” in Morgan Superior Court

against his sister, Cori Sparrow, individually and as personal representative of

the estate of their aunt, Marlene Maxwell, and M & B Maxwell Farm, Inc.

(collectively, “the defendants”). Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 p. 12. M & B is an

Indiana for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Morgan

County. Maxwell, a resident of Boone County, is a minority shareholder and

Vice President of M & B. Sparrow, a resident of Morgan County, is a minority

shareholder and President of M & B. The Estate of Marlene Maxwell was

opened in Morgan County in December 2024.

[3] At the same time that Maxwell filed the Complaint, he filed, pursuant to Rule 4

of the Indiana Commercial Court Rules, a “Notice Identifying Commercial

Court Docket Case,” which asserted that this case is “eligible for assignment to

the Commercial Court Docket pursuant to Rule 2 of the Commercial Court

Rules” and asked the “Clerk of Court to assign this case to the Commercial

Court Docket.” Id. at 37; see also Ind. Commercial Court Rule 4(B)(1), (2)

(providing that “[a]ny party may request to have an eligible case assigned to the

Commercial Court Docket” and that a party requesting assignment “must file

with the clerk of the court a ‘Notice Identifying Commercial Court Docket

Case’”). According to Rule 4(D)(1)(a), where, as here, a plaintiff files an

Identifying Notice “before the appearance of any other party,” “[t]he Clerk of

the Court must provisionally assign the case to the Commercial Court Docket.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CE-2947 | April 8, 2026 Page 3 of 9 Although Morgan County doesn’t have a commercial court, the clerk gave this

case a “case classification code” of “CE,” which means it is “Commercial

Court Eligible.” See Ind. Administrative Rule 8(B)(3).

[4] According to Commercial Court Rule 4(C)(1), “When one party files an

Identifying Notice, each other party may”:

a) Object to the assignment of an eligible case to the Commercial Court Docket;

b) Consent to the assignment of an eligible case to the Commercial Court Docket; or

c) Waive objection to the assignment of an eligible case to the Commercial Court Docket.

A party objecting to the assignment of an eligible case to the Commercial Court

Docket “must file and serve on all other parties a Notice of Refusal,” which

“must” be filed “by the later of the following dates”:

i. Thirty (30) days after service of the Identifying Notice; or

ii. Thirty (30) days after appearing in the case.

Commercial Ct. R. 4(C)(2)(a). Importantly, “A party waives objection to the

assignment of an eligible case to the Commercial Court Docket by failing to file

and serve a timely Refusal Notice.” Id. at (C)(3)(b). This means that the party

“waives . . . [a]ny right to contest, at any time during the proceedings or on

appeal, the case’s eligibility for assignment to the Commercial Court Docket.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CE-2947 | April 8, 2026 Page 4 of 9 Id. at (C)(2)(d)(ii). A party’s waiver of objection to assignment is “binding and

irrevocable unless all other parties agree to permit the party to file a Refusal

Notice.” Id. at (C)(3)(d) (emphasis added). “When each party either consents to

assignment or waives objection to assignment, the clerk of the court must

transfer and assign the case to a Commercial Court Docket.” Id. at (C)(3)(c)(i)

(emphasis added); see also id. at (D)(1)(b) (providing that if “no Refusal Notice is

timely filed by any party that appears in the case,” the provisional assignment is

“deemed permanent”); Vickery v. Ardagh Glass Inc., 85 N.E.3d 852, 857 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2017) (“Only where, as here, no Refusal Notice is timely filed will the

case be permanently assigned to a Commercial Court docket.”), reh’g denied,

trans. denied.

[5] Here, Sparrow individually appeared by counsel on September 16, M & B

appeared by counsel on September 23, and Sparrow as personal representative

appeared by counsel on September 25. Since the last party appeared on

September 25, the last day that a Notice of Refusal could be filed under Rule

4(C)(2)(a) was October 27 (October 25 was a Saturday). None of the defendants

filed a Notice of Refusal by October 27.

[6] The next day, October 28, Maxwell filed a “Verified Motion for Change of

Venue from the County” pursuant to Trial Rule 76 and Commercial Court Rule

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CE-2947 | April 8, 2026 Page 5 of 9 4. 2 Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 p. 51. Maxwell alleged that since none of the

defendants had filed a Notice of Refusal by October 27, they waived objection

to the assignment of the case to the Commercial Court Docket. Maxwell thus

asked the trial court to transfer the case to the Commercial Court Docket of the

nearest commercial court in adjoining Marion County.

[7] On November 7, the trial court issued an order stating that it “d[id] not see that

an Identifying Notice has been filed.” Id. at 57. Believing (incorrectly) that no

Identifying Notice had been filed, the court gave the defendants until November

12 to file a Notice of Refusal, which they each did. See id. at 63, 66, 68. Based

on these Notices of Refusal, the trial court denied Maxwell’s request to have

this case transferred to a Commercial Court Docket.

[8] Maxwell now brings this interlocutory appeal as a matter of right under Indiana

Appellate Rule 14(A). 3

Discussion and Decision [9] Maxwell contends that the trial court erred in accepting the defendants’

untimely Notices of Refusal and in denying assignment of this case to a

Commercial Court Docket. He argues that Commercial Court Rule 4’s

language is clear that if a party doesn’t timely file a Notice of Refusal, the party

2 Maxwell didn’t need to rely on Trial Rule 76, because Commercial Court Rule 4 governs transfer to a Commercial Court Docket. Thus, contrary to M & B’s argument on appeal, Maxwell doesn’t have to satisfy Trial Rule 76’s change-of-venue requirements. 3 Only M & B has filed an appellee’s brief.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CE-2947 | April 8, 2026 Page 6 of 9 waives objection to the assignment of the case to the Commercial Court

Docket. This is a question of law that we review de novo. See Morrison v.

Vasquez, 124 N.E.3d 1217, 1219 (Ind. 2019).

[10] We agree with Maxwell. As detailed above, Rule 4 establishes a bright-line

framework that governs when and how a party may invoke its right to refuse

assignment to the Commercial Court Docket. That framework (1) fixes a strict

deadline for objection under Rule 4(C)(2)(a); (2) provides that the failure to

object within that period results in waiver of any right to contest assignment to

the Commercial Court Docket at trial and on appeal under Rule 4(C)(2)(d)(ii);

and (3) makes that waiver binding and irrevocable absent unanimous consent of

the other parties under Rule 4(C)(3)(d). By failing to file a Notice of Refusal by

October 27, the defendants waived objection to the assignment of this case to

the Commercial Court Docket. Although the trial court purported to extend the

deadline to November 12, it can’t do so after the 30 days have passed.

[11] M & B argues that not allowing the defendants to file a belated Notice of

Refusal is against the spirit of the Commercial Court Rules, which is that

participation in commercial court is voluntary and each party has the right to

veto the transfer of a case to the Commercial Court Docket. See Appellee’s Br.

p. 15. But as just explained, while each party has such a right, that right is

conditional and must be exercised by a deadline. And where, as here, that

deadline is not met, the only way a party can file a belated Notice of Refusal is

if all other parties agree. Maxwell did not agree.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CE-2947 | April 8, 2026 Page 7 of 9 [12] M & B appears to suggest that because this case was not originally filed in a

county with a commercial court, then it can’t be transferred to a Commercial

Court Docket in another county since the parties don’t agree. The Commercial

Court Rules don’t appear to explicitly address this scenario. But as Maxwell

says:

Nothing in the [Commercial Court Rules] precludes a litigant from invoking the Commercial Court process in a county that does not maintain a designated Commercial Court. See generally CCR 1-8. To the contrary, the statewide applicability of the [Commercial Court Rules] presupposes that eligible cases may originate in any county and, when properly identified and not refused, proceed on the Commercial Court Docket before a designated Commercial Court. See generally CCR 5(A). Preferred venue explains why [Maxwell] properly initiated the underlying case in Morgan County; however, it does not justify the Trial Court’s refusal to assign and transfer an eligible case as mandated by CCR 4.

Appellant’s Reply Br. p. 18. We agree with Maxwell that the Rules don’t

require a plaintiff to initiate a lawsuit (which it hopes will be transferred to a

commercial court) in a county with a commercial court. 4 What Maxwell did

here was not improper under the rules as they are currently written. He filed his

lawsuit in Morgan County, which everyone agrees has preferred venue, and

then filed his Identifying Notice seeking to have the case transferred to the

4 For example, Rule 4 says that any party can file an Identifying Notice. Thus, if a plaintiff filed a lawsuit in a county without a commercial court, a defendant filed an Identifying Notice, and the other parties either consented to assignment or waived objection to assignment, the case would have to be transferred to a county with a commercial court.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CE-2947 | April 8, 2026 Page 8 of 9 Commercial Court Docket in Marion County. Had the defendants timely filed

a Notice of Refusal, the case would have remained in Morgan County. But

according to Rule 4(C)(3)(c)(i), because the defendants waived objection to

assignment, “the clerk of the court must transfer and assign the case to a

Commercial Court Docket.” (Emphasis added). Although the rule doesn’t

specify where the case should be transferred, we find that it should be

transferred to the closest geographical commercial court. We therefore remand

with instructions for this case to be transferred to the Commercial Court Docket

in Marion County.

[13] Reversed and remanded.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Benjamin A. Spandau DeAnn L. Farthing Madison Cibulka Mason H. Hiatt Robinson Farthing Spandau Williams Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE M & B MAXWELL FARM, INC. Christopher C. Hagenow Samuel H. Young Tuohy Bailey & Moore LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CE-2947 | April 8, 2026 Page 9 of 9