Muir Woods Section One Association v. Claudia O. Fuentes, Marion County Treasurer (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 5, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CC-2643
• 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 Jun 05 2019, 9:39 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES James K. Gilday Jessica R. Gastineau Gilday & Associates, P.C. Traci M. Cosby Indianapolis, Indiana Office of Corporation Counsel Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Muir Woods Section One June 5, 2019 Association, Inc., et al., Court of Appeals Case No. Appellants-Plaintiffs, 18A-CC-2643 Appeal from the Marion Superior v. Court The Honorable James B. Osborn, Claudia O. Fuentes, Marion Judge County Treasurer; et al., Trial Court Cause No. Appellees-Defendants. 49D14-1802-CC-6237

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CC-2643 | June 5, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Muir Woods Section One Assn., Inc. and Nantucket Bay Homeowners

Association, Inc. (collectively, the “HOAs”) appeal, alleging the improper

dismissal of their action against several Marion County officials (the

“Officials”). Because the record is ambiguous as to whether the court reinstated

the action upon a motion to correct error, we remand for clarification.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In 2018, the HOAs filed separate complaints against the Officials, who then

moved to dismiss each action. The actions were consolidated, and the trial

court granted the motions to dismiss on September 4, 2018. The HOAs filed a

motion to correct error on October 4, 2018. The next day, the court made the

following entry on its Chronological Case Summary (“CCS”): “Order Denying

Motion to Dismiss.” App. Vol. 2 at 8. The court also distributed a document

titled “ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS.” Id. at 16. The document has the word “DENIED”

placed near the top. Id. The HOAs filed a Notice of Appeal, purporting to

challenge dismissal of the action and denial of their motion to correct error.

Discussion and Decision [3] Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 77(B), “[t]he CCS is an official record of the trial

court” and a trial court judge “shall cause CCS entries to be made of all judicial

events.” Moreover, it is well-settled “that the trial court speaks through its Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CC-2643 | June 5, 2019 Page 2 of 4 CCS” and an appellate court “is limited in its authority to look behind the CCS

to examine whether an event recorded therein actually occurred.” City of

Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227, 233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.

[4] On October 5, 2018—the day after the HOAs filed a motion to correct error—

the court made the following CCS entry: “Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.”

App. Vol. 2 at 8. At that time, there was no pending motion to dismiss.

Nonetheless, the entry suggests the court was granting the motion to correct

error, in that the allegation of error related to an order granting a motion to

dismiss. Thus, granting relief would be functionally equivalent to denying that

earlier motion to dismiss—and the entry reflects denial of a motion to dismiss.

[5] The same day of this unclear CCS entry, the court distributed a document titled

“ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS.” Id. at 16. The document resembles a proposed

order as it refers to the motion to correct error and contains blank spaces for a

date and a signature. If the trial court had filled in those spaces, the document

would appear to grant relief to the HOAs. Yet, the court did not fill in those

spaces. It instead wrote “DENIED” near the top. Id. Were this a proposed

order accompanying a motion, this language of denial would suggest the denial

of the underlying motion—although writing “DENIED” on a proposed order is

far less clear than writing “DENIED” atop the motion itself. Nevertheless, the

origin of this document is unclear. Indeed, the motion to correct error in the

Appendix does not include a proposed order. See App. Vol. 3 at 2-109.

Moreover, the CCS does not reflect separate receipt of a proposed order.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CC-2643 | June 5, 2019 Page 3 of 4 [6] The parties make no issue of the imprecise actions of the court.1 However, we

decline to make assumptions about this ambiguous record. Indeed, if the court

has reinstated the case, we would lack jurisdiction. See Ind. Appellate Rule 5

(conferring jurisdiction over final judgments as well as certain interlocutory

orders as set forth in Appellate Rule 14); App. R. 14 (listing nine types of

interlocutory orders appealable as of right—none of which apply—in addition

to a process for perfecting a discretionary interlocutory appeal). We therefore

remand with instructions to clarify disposition of the motion to correct error.

[7] Remanded.

Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

1 In briefing, the Officials omit a statement of the case while failing to expressly agree with the statement of the case set forth in the Brief of Appellants, contrary to Appellate Rule 46(B)(1).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CC-2643 | June 5, 2019 Page 4 of 4