Gail L. Bratcher and Edmond R. Rivera v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 28, 2019
• Docket: 19A-MF-1404
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 28 2019, 7:15 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANTS PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gail L. Bratcher Dustin R. DeNeal Edmond R. Rivera Elizabeth A. Little New Salisbury, Indiana Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gail L. Bratcher and Edmond R. October 28, 2019 Rivera, Court of Appeals Case No. Appellants-Defendants, 19A-MF-1404 Appeal from the Harrison Circuit v. Court The Honorable John T. Evans, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 31C01-1902-MF-21

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case [1] Gail L. Bratcher and Edmond R. Rivera (collectively “Homeowners”) appeal

the trial court’s order dated May 29, 2019, regarding several pending motions in

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MF-1404 | October 28, 2019 Page 1 of 4 this foreclosure action filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”).

Homeowners present three issues for our review. However, we conclude that

Homeowners have not secured appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss

this appeal.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On February 19, 2019, Wells Fargo filed a complaint to foreclose its mortgage

lien on real property in New Salisbury owned by Bratcher. Rivera lives with

Bratcher and has contributed to the mortgage payments on the real property,

and the trial court permitted him to intervene in this action. Homeowners filed

various motions, including a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion for

a temporary restraining order. Following a hearing on all pending motions on

May 16, the trial court denied each of Homeowners’ motions, but the court

granted in part Homeowners’ motion for the court to take judicial notice of

“certain facts.” Appellants’ Br. at 17. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [3] On appeal, Homeowners raise three issues for our review. 1 However, “‘[i]t is

the duty of this Court to determine whether we have jurisdiction before

proceeding to determine the rights of the parties on the merits.’” DuSablon v.

Jackson Cty. Bank, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 18A-MI-2259, 2019 WL 4582946, at *5

1 Homeowners are pro se and ask that we apply a “less stringent” standard to their brief on appeal. Appellants’ Br. at 8. However, it is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MF-1404 | October 28, 2019 Page 2 of 4 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2019) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d

191, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied). Jurisdiction is a question of law

we review de novo. Id. This Court’s typical jurisdiction is over final judgments

from our trial courts. Id. (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 5(A)). There is no final

judgment here, however, as Wells Fargo’s complaint remains pending in the

trial court. See App. R. 2(H)(1). Indeed, the trial court has scheduled a

settlement conference in this matter for November 14, 2019.

[4] Nonetheless, this Court “shall have jurisdiction over appeals of interlocutory

orders” pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14. App. R. 5(B). As we have

explained:

“An appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed unless specifically authorized by the Indiana Constitution, statutes, or the rules of court. The authorization is to be strictly construed, and any attempt to perfect an appeal without such authorization warrants a dismissal.

***

. . . There are three ways that this Court has jurisdiction over interlocutory orders under Rule 14: (1) Rule 14(A) allows interlocutory appeals as of right; (2) Rule 14(B) permits discretionary appeals “if the trial court certifies its order and the Court of Appeals accepts jurisdiction over the appeal”; and (3) Rule 14(C) authorizes other interlocutory appeals only as provided by statute.”

Dusablon, 2019 WL 4582946, at *5 (quoting Allstate Ins. Co., 801 N.E.2d at 193

(emphasis added; citations omitted)).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MF-1404 | October 28, 2019 Page 3 of 4 [5] Here, Homeowners purport to appeal from a final judgment, but no final

judgment has yet been entered. Rather, Homeowners appeal from an

interlocutory order. But Homeowners did not seek certification of the trial

court’s order under Appellate Rule 14(B), and they do not allege that any of the

three issues they raise on appeal are appealable as of right under Appellate Rule

14(A) or otherwise appealable under Appellate Rule 14(C). Accordingly, there

is nothing for this Court to review, and we are required to dismiss this appeal.

[6] Dismissed.

Crone, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MF-1404 | October 28, 2019 Page 4 of 4