Marlena Koerner v. Jacob Snowden (mem. dec.)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 19 2018, 9:06 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT APPELLEE PRO SE Thomas J. Lantz Jacob N. Snowden Montgomery, Elsner & Pardieck, LLP Westport, Indiana Seymour, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Marlena Koerner, April 19, 2018 Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.

36A01-1711-DR-2641

v. Appeal from the Jackson Superior Court

Jacob Snowden, The Honorable Bruce A. Appellee-Respondent. MacTavish, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 36D02-1102-DR-44

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Marlena Koerner (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to

terminate Jacob Snowden’s (“Father”) parenting time with the parties’

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1711-DR-2641 | April 19, 2018 Page 1 of 3 daughter, K.S. (“Child”). Mother presents two issues for our review, but,

because we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal, we do not reach its

merits. We dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Mother and Father were married and had one child together, K.S. In April

2011, they dissolved their marriage. On September 28, 2017, Mother filed a

motion to terminate parenting time, whereby she moved the trial court to

“terminate” Father’s parenting time with Child due to his “emotional abuse” of

Child. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 14. The trial court initially set a hearing on

Mother’s motion for October 20. However, on October 17, the trial court

issued an order vacating the October 20 hearing, denying Mother’s motion, and

ordering the parties to participate in mediation on the issues of parenting time,

contempt, and child support. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[3] As this court explained in Bacon v. Bacon, 877 N.E.2d 801, 804 (Ind. Ct. App.

2007), trans. denied:

The Indiana Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in all appeals from final judgments. Ind. Appellate Rule 5(A). A “final judgment” is one which “disposes of all claims as to all parties. . . .” App. R. 2(H)(1). A final judgment disposes of all issues as to all parties, thereby ending the particular case and leaving nothing for future determination. Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 451 (Ind. 2003). Whether an order is a final judgment governs our subject matter jurisdiction, and it can be raised at any time by any party or by the court itself. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1711-DR-2641 | April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 3

[4] Here, the trial court’s October 17, 2017, order neither disposes of all claims

between the parties nor ends the case. Indeed, the court’s order concludes with

instructions that the parties “submit to mediation within forty-five (45) days on

the issues of parenting time, contempt[,] and child support[.]” Appellant’s App.

Vol. II at 18. As the trial court’s order was not a final judgment,1 Mother

cannot appeal unless the order is an appealable interlocutory order, which it is

not. The order is not appealable as of right under Appellate Rule 14(A), and

Mother did not seek certification of the order for a discretionary interlocutory

appeal under Appellate Rule 14(B).2 See App. R. 14. Accordingly, we do not

have subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal.

[5] Dismissed.

Robb, J., and Altice, J, concur.

1 The trial court did not expressly determine that “there is no just reason for delay” or direct the entry of judgment under Trial Rules 54(B) or 56(C). App. R. 2(H). 2 In her notice of appeal, Mother purports to appeal from a final judgment.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1711-DR-2641 | April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 3