Gail L. Bratcher and Edmond R. Rivera v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 28 2019, 7:15 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANTS PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Gail L. Bratcher Dustin R. DeNeal
Edmond R. Rivera Elizabeth A. Little
New Salisbury, Indiana Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gail L. Bratcher and Edmond R. October 28, 2019
Rivera, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellants-Defendants, 19A-MF-1404
Appeal from the Harrison Circuit
v. Court
The Honorable John T. Evans,
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
31C01-1902-MF-21
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Gail L. Bratcher and Edmond R. Rivera (collectively “Homeowners”) appeal
the trial court’s order dated May 29, 2019, regarding several pending motions in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MF-1404 | October 28, 2019 Page 1 of 4
this foreclosure action filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”).
Homeowners present three issues for our review. However, we conclude that
Homeowners have not secured appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss
this appeal.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 19, 2019, Wells Fargo filed a complaint to foreclose its mortgage
lien on real property in New Salisbury owned by Bratcher. Rivera lives with
Bratcher and has contributed to the mortgage payments on the real property,
and the trial court permitted him to intervene in this action. Homeowners filed
various motions, including a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion for
a temporary restraining order. Following a hearing on all pending motions on
May 16, the trial court denied each of Homeowners’ motions, but the court
granted in part Homeowners’ motion for the court to take judicial notice of
“certain facts.” Appellants’ Br. at 17. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[3] On appeal, Homeowners raise three issues for our review. 1 However, “‘[i]t is
the duty of this Court to determine whether we have jurisdiction before
proceeding to determine the rights of the parties on the merits.’” DuSablon v.
Jackson Cty. Bank, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 18A-MI-2259, 2019 WL 4582946, at *5
1
Homeowners are pro se and ask that we apply a “less stringent” standard to their brief on appeal.
Appellants’ Br. at 8. However, it is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed
attorneys. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MF-1404 | October 28, 2019 Page 2 of 4
(Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2019) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d
191, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied). Jurisdiction is a question of law
we review de novo. Id. This Court’s typical jurisdiction is over final judgments
from our trial courts. Id. (citing Ind. Appellate Rule 5(A)). There is no final
judgment here, however, as Wells Fargo’s complaint remains pending in the
trial court. See App. R. 2(H)(1). Indeed, the trial court has scheduled a
settlement conference in this matter for November 14, 2019.
[4] Nonetheless, this Court “shall have jurisdiction over appeals of interlocutory
orders” pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14. App. R. 5(B). As we have
explained:
“An appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed unless
specifically authorized by the Indiana Constitution, statutes, or
the rules of court. The authorization is to be strictly construed, and
any attempt to perfect an appeal without such authorization warrants a
dismissal.
***
. . . There are three ways that this Court has jurisdiction over
interlocutory orders under Rule 14: (1) Rule 14(A) allows
interlocutory appeals as of right; (2) Rule 14(B) permits
discretionary appeals “if the trial court certifies its order and the
Court of Appeals accepts jurisdiction over the appeal”; and (3)
Rule 14(C) authorizes other interlocutory appeals only as
provided by statute.”
Dusablon, 2019 WL 4582946, at *5 (quoting Allstate Ins. Co., 801 N.E.2d at 193
(emphasis added; citations omitted)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MF-1404 | October 28, 2019 Page 3 of 4
[5] Here, Homeowners purport to appeal from a final judgment, but no final
judgment has yet been entered. Rather, Homeowners appeal from an
interlocutory order. But Homeowners did not seek certification of the trial
court’s order under Appellate Rule 14(B), and they do not allege that any of the
three issues they raise on appeal are appealable as of right under Appellate Rule
14(A) or otherwise appealable under Appellate Rule 14(C). Accordingly, there
is nothing for this Court to review, and we are required to dismiss this appeal.
[6] Dismissed.
Crone, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MF-1404 | October 28, 2019 Page 4 of 4