You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Peals v. County of Vigo

Citations: 783 N.E.2d 781; 2003 Ind. App. LEXIS 267; 2003 WL 463106Docket: No. 84A01-0111-CV-434

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; February 24, 2003; Indiana; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Robert Peals appeals the trial court's summary judgment favoring Vigo County, but his appeal is dismissed due to failure to file a Notice of Appeal within the required thirty days post-judgment. Peals initiated a two-count complaint against Vigo County, the State of Indiana, and Marcia Boyles on November 27, 1998, alleging tortious interference and civil rights violations. Vigo County moved for summary judgment on March 28, 2000, which the trial court granted on November 16, 2000. Peals filed a motion for relief from this order, claiming it was unclear regarding its applicability to other defendants and lacked necessary designations. An amended order clarifying the summary judgment was issued on January 24, 2001, affirming judgment for Vigo County only, while the case continued against the remaining defendants. Peals subsequently dismissed his claims against the State and Boyles and filed his Notice of Appeal on August 29, 2001. Peals argues that the January 24 order was not a final judgment. However, Indiana Trial Rules state that a judgment on fewer than all claims is only final if the court explicitly determines there is no just reason for delay and directs entry of judgment, which the court did in this case.

The trial court's January 24, 2001, order granted summary judgment for the Board of Commissioners of Vigo County, designating it as a final, appealable judgment under Trial Rules 56(C) and 54(B) by stating there was "no just reason for delay" and directing entry of judgment only for claims against the Board. Peals argued that the judgment was not final because the court did not specify the issues or claims with no genuine disputes, as required by Trial Rule 56(C). However, the court's order explicitly addressed all claims filed by Peals against the Board, fulfilling the necessary criteria. Under Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(1), Peals was required to file a Notice of Appeal within thirty days of the judgment. His filing on August 29, 2001, was outside this timeframe, resulting in the forfeiture of his right to appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Judges Najam and Riley concurred with the dismissal.