Teegarden v. Sattison

Indiana Court of Appeals

Teegarden v. Sattison

404 N.E.2d 1163, 76 Ind. Dec. 192, 1980 Ind. App. LEXIS 1468

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 1980

Docket3-1279A336

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 404 N.E.2d 1163 (Teegarden v. Sattison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Teegarden v. Sattison, 404 N.E.2d 1163, 76 Ind. Dec. 192, 1980 Ind. App. LEXIS 1468 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

STATON, Judge.

Jimmie L. Sattison, Clayton Sattison, Jr., and Sattison’s Refrigeration (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Sattison”), filed a complaint against Karen Jean Teegarden for money owing on equipment sold and work performed. The trial court entered judgment for Sattison. Teegarden appeals, contending that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for a change of venue from the judge.

We reverse.

In 1975, the General Assembly enacted legislation 1 which significantly altered Indiana’s system of courts of limited jurisdic *1164 tion. The legislation, inter alia, abolished justice of the peace courts and, in their place, established county courts.

Each of the county courts maintains three dockets:

(1) an offenses docket.

(2) a small claims docket for:

(A) all cases where the amount sought or the value of the property sought to be recovered is $1,500 or less, and

(B) all possessory actions between landlord and tenant where the rent reserved does not exceed $500 per month; and

(3) a plenary docket for civil cases above $1,500 but not more than $3,000. IC 33-10.5-7-1.

While cases assigned to the small claims dockets are subject to relaxed rules of procedure and evidence, the cases assigned to the plenary dockets are, except as otherwise provided in the Legislation, governed by the rules of procedure as adopted by the Supreme Court. IC 33-10.5-7-2.

Sattison filed its complaint in the plenary docket of the Steuben County Court on February 27, 1979. On April 2, 1979, Tee-garden filed an answer to the complaint and a motion for a change of venue from the judge. The motion was denied and the matter proceeded to trial.

IC 33-10.5-7-3 specifically provides that a change of venue from the judge of a county court “shall be granted as provided by statute and rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana.” Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 76 renders the granting of a change of venue mandatory if it is requested within ten days after the issues are first closed on the merits. Here, the issues were not closed on the merits until Teegarden filed her answer, State ex rel. Hohlt v. Superior Court of Marion Co. (1971), 256 Ind. 544, 270 N.E.2d 761, and the motion for a change of venue was filed within ten days thereof. Accordingly, the trial court was required to grant the change of venue.

The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GARRARD, P. J., and HOFFMAN, J., concur.

1

. IC 1971, 33-10.5-1-1 through 33-10.5-8-6 (Burns Code Ed., Supp. 1980).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STATON, Judge.

Jimmie L. Sattison, Clayton Sattison, Jr., and Sattison’s Refrigeration (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Sattison”), filed a complaint against Karen Jean Teegarden for money owing on equipment sold and work performed. The trial court entered judgment for Sattison. Teegarden appeals, contending that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for a change of venue from the judge.

We reverse.

In 1975, the General Assembly enacted legislation 1 which significantly altered Indiana’s system of courts of limited jurisdic *1164 tion. The legislation, inter alia, abolished justice of the peace courts and, in their place, established county courts.

Each of the county courts maintains three dockets:

(1) an offenses docket.

(2) a small claims docket for:

(A) all cases where the amount sought or the value of the property sought to be recovered is $1,500 or less, and

(B) all possessory actions between landlord and tenant where the rent reserved does not exceed $500 per month; and

(3) a plenary docket for civil cases above $1,500 but not more than $3,000. IC 33-10.5-7-1.

While cases assigned to the small claims dockets are subject to relaxed rules of procedure and evidence, the cases assigned to the plenary dockets are, except as otherwise provided in the Legislation, governed by the rules of procedure as adopted by the Supreme Court. IC 33-10.5-7-2.

Sattison filed its complaint in the plenary docket of the Steuben County Court on February 27, 1979. On April 2, 1979, Tee-garden filed an answer to the complaint and a motion for a change of venue from the judge. The motion was denied and the matter proceeded to trial.

IC 33-10.5-7-3 specifically provides that a change of venue from the judge of a county court “shall be granted as provided by statute and rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana.” Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 76 renders the granting of a change of venue mandatory if it is requested within ten days after the issues are first closed on the merits. Here, the issues were not closed on the merits until Teegarden filed her answer, State ex rel. Hohlt v. Superior Court of Marion Co. (1971), 256 Ind. 544, 270 N.E.2d 761, and the motion for a change of venue was filed within ten days thereof. Accordingly, the trial court was required to grant the change of venue.

The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GARRARD, P. J., and HOFFMAN, J., concur.

1

. IC 1971, 33-10.5-1-1 through 33-10.5-8-6 (Burns Code Ed., Supp. 1980).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 N.E.2d 1163, 76 Ind. Dec. 192, 1980 Ind. App. LEXIS 1468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teegarden-v-sattison-indctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack