Arlinda E. Greener v. Douglas W. Biehl and Donovan E. Brunsman (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be May 07 2020, 5:38 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Steven E. Ripstra Marc Tawfik
Ripstra Law Office McNeely Stephenson
Jasper, Indiana New Albany, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Arlinda E. Greener, May, 7, 2020
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CT-2386
v. Appeal from the Dubois Superior
Court
Douglas W. Biehl and Donovan The Honorable Mark R.
E. Brunsman, McConnell, Judge
Appellees-Defendants Trial Court Cause No.
19D01-1507-CT-362
May, Judge.
[1] Arlinda E. Greener appeals the denial of her motion to correct error. We
affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 1 of 6
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Late at night on July 17, 2013, Douglas Biehl and Donovan Brunsman finished
raking hay with two of Brunsman’s tractors in a field near Huntingburg. They
had to travel a short distance on Highway 161 to arrive where they intended to
store the tractors for the night. Brunsman exited the field and drove his tractor
onto the highway, and Biehl followed him in the other tractor. Greener was
driving in her car on the highway when she approached the back of the tractor
driven by Biehl. The tractor Biehl was driving lacked a slow-moving vehicle
sign, but it had a flashing light on the back. When Biehl slowed his tractor to
turn left, Greener rear-ended Biehl.
[3] Greener sued Biehl and Brunsman. She alleged she “was injured and damaged
as a direct and proximate result of the careless and negligent operation by
Defendant Douglas W. Biehl of a tractor and farm implement owned,
equipped, and maintained by Defendant Donovan E. Brunsman[.]” (App. Vol.
II at 11.) The trial court held a jury trial on July 31 and August 1, 2019. The
jury returned a verdict finding Greener primarily responsible for the accident.
On August 26, 2019, Greener filed a “Motion for Relief from an Adverse
Judgment and to Correct Errors.” She stated the following grounds for relief:
1. The jury’s verdict should be set aside because there was, and
is, a latent lack of evidence to support the verdict;
2. The verdict is contrary to the uncontradicted evidence;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 2 of 6
3. There is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference to be
adduced from the evidence to support an essential element of
the defense claims; and
4. The evidence points unerringly to a conclusion not reached by
the jury.
5. Further, in addition to the verdict not being sustained by
sufficient evidence, it is also contrary to law.
(App. Vol. III at 68.) The motion did not contain any additional explanatory
paragraphs, and it was not accompanied by a memorandum. On September 10,
2019, Biehl and Brunsman filed a response to the motion. The trial court
summarily denied the motion on September 12, 2019. 1
Discussion and Decision
[4] Greener purports to have brought her motion pursuant to both Indiana Trial
Rule 59 and Trial Rule 60. Trial Rule 59 governs motions to correct error, and
filing a Trial Rule 59 motion is a prerequisite to appeal if a party is claiming
that a jury verdict was excessive or inadequate. Ind. T.R. 59(A)(2). Trial Rule
60 is meant to address “only the procedural, equitable grounds for justifying
relief from the legal finality of a final judgment, not the legal merits of the
judgment.” Barton v. Barton, 47 N.E.3d 368, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans.
1
Greener’s appendix does not include a copy of an order denying her motion to correct error. Rather, the
appendix includes a copy of the chronological case summary with an entry indicating the trial court denied
the motion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 3 of 6
denied. We therefore evaluate Greener’s motion pursuant to Trial Rule 59,
which is the proper vehicle for challenging the legal merits of a final judgment.
See In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 741 (Ind. 2010) (declining to
entertain challenge to merits of trial court’s final order when challenge made by
Trial Rule 60 motion).
[5] Our standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to correct error is
well settled.
We generally review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to correct
error for an abuse of discretion. Jocham v. Sutliff, 26 N.E.3d 82,
85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion
occurs when the trial court’s decision is against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the
court has misinterpreted the law. In re Marriage of Dean, 787
N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. However,
where the issues raised in the motion are questions of law, the
standard of review is de novo. City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932
N.E.2d 227, 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.
Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Watson, 70 N.E.3d 380, 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
[6] Biehl and Brunsman argue Greener’s motion “lacked any argument or
application of the facts for the trial court to consider and was properly denied.”
(Appellee’s Br. at 9.) Indiana Trial Rule 59(D) provides that any error raised in
a motion to correct error “shall be stated in specific rather than general terms
and shall be accompanied by a statement of facts and grounds upon which the
error is based.” (emphases added.) As our Indiana Supreme Court has
explained, “Bald general assertions of error do not constitute substantial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 4 of 6
compliance with our rules.” Young v. Duckworth, 394 N.E.2d 123, 125 (Ind.
1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 906 (1980), reh’g denied, 445 U.S. 973 (1980). “The
motion to correct error is intended to focus the trial court on important alleged
errors in the trial court proceedings and to provide the court with an
opportunity to reflect on and correct those errors, thereby eliminating the need
for the parties to take an appeal.” Motion to Correct Error, 22A Ind. Prac.,
Civil Trial Practice § 37.1 (2d ed.).
[7] Greener filed a motion to correct error. However, her motion did not include a
statement of facts. Greener did not cite to any authority to support her
assertion that the verdict was contrary to law. She did not specifically identify
any uncontradicted evidence the verdict was contrary too, nor did she explain
how the evidence pointed only to the conclusion opposite that reached by the
jury. She also did not allege or put forth any new material evidence.
Consequently, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Greener’s motion to correct error. See Anderson v. Ind. St. Emp. App. Comm., 360
N.E.2d 1040, 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977) (holding appellant’s motion to correct
error was “not sufficiently specific to have presented any error to the trial
court”), reh’g denied; see also D.A.Y. Investments LLC v. Lake Co., 106 N.E.3d 500,
506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying
motion to correct error because the motion did not demonstrate the party was
entitled to relief), reh’g denied, trans. denied.
Conclusion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 5 of 6
[8] Greener’s motion to correct error did not comply with Trial Rule 59. It did not
state the challenged error in specific terms, nor did it identify any facts or
grounds supporting the requested relief. Because her motion was inadequate to
notify the court of the errors alleged or demonstrate she was entitled to relief,
we cannot hold the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court.
[9] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2386 | May 7, 2020 Page 6 of 6