Ronald Protho and Gwen Protho v. Tawanna Brown (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 14, 2017
• Docket: 45A04-1608-SC-1815
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Mar 14 2017, 8:49 am

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 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Douglas M. Grimes Eric Oden Clark Douglas M. Grimes, PC Munster, Indiana Gary, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ronald Protho and March 14, 2017 Gwen Protho, Court of Appeals Case No. Appellants-Respondents, 45A04-1608-SC-1815 Appeal from the Lake Superior v. Court The Honorable Elizabeth F. Tawanna Brown, Tavitas, Judge Appellee-Claimant Trial Court Cause No. 45D03-1605-SC-4

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1608-SC-1815 | March 14, 2017 Page 1 of 3 [1] On May 1, 2015, Tawanna Brown purchased a property in Gary (the Property)

at a tax sale for $300. The property was occupied by Ronald and Gwen Protho.

On February 23, 2016, Brown filed a notice of claim seeking immediate

possession of the Property.1 On August 5, 2016, following a hearing, the trial

court entered an order granting immediate possession of the Property to Brown

and setting a future hearing on damages. On August 10, 2016, the Prothos filed

a motion to stay the proceedings and a notice of appeal. On August 15, 2016,

the eviction of the Prothos occurred pursuant to the August 5 order. On August

17, 2016, the trial court granted the motion to stay the proceedings. The

Prothos now appeal.

[2] The only argument raised by the Prothos on appeal is that the trial court erred

by waiting to rule on the motion to stay until August 17, which was two days

after the eviction had already occurred. The Prothos offer no citations to

authority supporting their contention that the trial court ruled in an untimely

fashion. Trial Rule 62(B) provides that the ruling on a motion to stay while an

appeal is pending is solely within the discretion of the trial court. And Trial

Rule 6(D) provides that when a written motion is filed, at least five days must

lapse before a hearing on that motion is set, presumably so that the opposing

party has an opportunity to respond. Here, the Prothos’ motion was filed on

August 10 and, when an intervening weekend is excluded, five days had lapsed

1 Marion Williams, who owned the property directly abutting the Property, intervened in Brown’s claim. Williams is not participating in this appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1608-SC-1815 | March 14, 2017 Page 2 of 3 on August 17—the day on which the trial court ruled on the motion. Under

these circumstances, we see no error in the timing of the trial court’s ruling.2

[3] Although the Prothos ask that we reverse the trial court’s order granting

immediate possession of the Property to Brown and reinstate the Prothos’

tenancy, they offer absolutely no argument with respect to the propriety of the

order or the substance of the litigation. Therefore, we decline to dispose of the

case in this fashion.

[4] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and remanded for further

proceedings.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

2 Even if we had found error in the timeliness of the trial court’s ruling, we are hard pressed to determine what remedy could be offered to the Prothos.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1608-SC-1815 | March 14, 2017 Page 3 of 3