Falatovics v. Falatovics

72 N.E.3d 472

Imre L. FALATOVICS, Appellant–Respondent,

v.Amy L. FALATOVICS, Appellee–Petitioner

Court of Appeals Case No. 46A04-1605-DR-1161

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

March 10, 2017

Attorney for Appellant : Lori B. Schmeltzer, Schmeltzer, Law PLLC, Traverse City, Michigan

Attorney for Appellee : Kristina J. Jacobucci, Newby, Lewis, Kaminski & Jones, LLP, La Porte, Indiana

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] For the third time, this matter comes before us for review. Imre L. Falatovics ("Husband") and Amy L. Falatovics ("Wife") were divorced. Following the issuance of the dissolution decree, Wife filed an appeal and Husband filed an Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion (" Trial Rule 60(B) Motion") to set aside the dissolution decree. After this Court reversed a portion of the dissolution decree and remanded, another appeal ensued. Once this Court's opinion was certified, Wife moved to dismiss Husband's Trial Rule 60(B) Motion and his addendum to his Trial Rule 60(B) Motion ("Addendum") (sometimes collectively referred to as " Trial Rule 60(B) Motions"). The trial court granted Wife's motion and dismissed Husband's Trial Rule 60(B) Motions.

[2] Husband now appeals the dismissal of his Trial Rule 60(B) Motions. He argues that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to follow the proper procedure for bringing his Trial Rule 60(B) Motions. He also asserts that Wife is barred by the doctrines of laches and/or invited error from arguing that he failed to follow the proper procedure. Finally, he also contends that his constitutional rights were violated because he did not receive an evidentiary hearing on his motions. Wife contends that Husband's appeal is frivolous and in bad faith and requests that we award her appellate attorney fees.

[3] We conclude that trial court did not err in finding that Husband failed to follow the proper procedure. We further conclude that neither laches nor invited error applies and that Husband was not deprived of his constitutional rights. We affirm the judgment and deny Wife's request for attorney's fees.

Facts and Procedural History

[4] On December 19, 2013, the trial court issued the dissolution decree, dissolving the parties' marriage and dividing the marital estate. On January 13, 2014, Wife appealed. On January 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction when the notice of completion of clerk's record was entered in the chronological case summary ("CCS"). Ind. Appellate Rule 8.

[5] While the appeal was still pending, on May 7, 2014, Husband filed in the trial court his verified Trial Rule 60(B) Motion to set aside the dissolution decree, asserting that "Wife committed fraud to the court by not disclosing assets, vehicle(s) and bank accounts" owned during the divorce proceedings. Appellant's App. at 26. The trial court set the matter for hearing on August 26, 2014. On August 5, 2014, Wife filed a motion to continue the hearing, stating that her appeal was pending, and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear Husband's Trial Rule 60(B) Motion "until after a decision on the Appeal has been rendered." Id . at 28. The trial court granted Wife's motion.

[6] On August 14, 2014, this Court issued its opinion on Wife's appeal. Falatovics v. Falatovics , 15 N.E.3d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (" Falatovics 1 "). In her appeal, Wife argued that the trial court erred in excluding from the marital estate Husband's interest in two parcels of real estate ("Parcels 1 and 2") that he held with his brother as joint tenants subject to a life estate in his mother. Husband did not file a brief, and therefore we reviewed the trial court's judgment for prima facie error. We concluded that Husband held a present pecuniary interest in Parcels 1 and 2, and therefore the trial court improperly excluded his interest in them from the marital estate. In addition, we observed that the parties had agreed on the value of Husband's interest in Parcels 1 and 2, and therefore, we reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to include Husband's interest in Parcels 1 and 2 in the marital estate and divide the marital estate based on the new valuation in a manner it deemed fair. Id . at 111–12. Neither Husband nor Wife sought rehearing or transfer of our opinion, and it was certified as final on September 26, 2014.

[7] On October 29, 2014, the trial court held a status conference and addressed the remanded issues. On November 14, 2014, Husband filed his Addendum, claiming that the appraisals for Parcels 1 and 2 submitted by Wife "during the final hearing" were mistaken in fact and valuation.

Appellant's App. at 36. On November 25, 2014, the trial court issued its amended dissolution decree, wherein it included Husband's interest in Parcels 1 and 2 in the marital estate, revised the value of the estate accordingly, and equally divided the marital estate based upon this revised valuation. On December 9, 2014, the trial court scheduled a hearing for all pending issues on March 2, 2015.

[8] On December 23, 2014, Husband appealed the amended dissolution decree. On January 23, 2015, the notice of completion of clerk's record was entered in the CCS.

[9] On February 17, 2015, Wife filed in the trial court a motion for continuance of the hearing on Husband's pending Trial Rule 60(B) Motions, declaring that his appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the motions until after the appeal was rendered. Id . at 42. The same day, Husband filed an objection to continuance, claiming that the appeal briefing schedule was stayed and that "his pleadings before [the trial] Court must be heard prior to the appeal and it's [sic] briefing schedule." Id . at 43. On February 23, 2015, Wife filed a response to Husband's objection, asserting that the CCS did not show that the briefing schedule for the appeal had been stayed. The same day, the trial court granted Wife's motion for continuance.

[10] On March 12, 2015, Husband filed in the Court of Appeals a motion to stay appeal and remand jurisdiction to the trial court to consider his Trial Rule 60(B) Motions. Husband attached his Trial Rule 60(B) Motion and Addendum and averred that a ruling on these motions "may resolve some or all of the issues raised on appeal." Appellee's App. at 10. On March 30, 2015, Wife filed her objection to Husband's motion to stay appeal, asserting that Husband waived all issues raised in his Trial Rule 60(B) Motions by failing to seek leave of the Court of Appeals to file his motions. Id . at 18. On April 10, 2015, this Court denied Husband's motion to stay appeal. It did not provide the basis for its denial.

[11] On November 5, 2015, this Court handed down its memorandum decision on Husband's appeal of the amended dissolution decree. Falatovics v. Falatovics , No. 46A03-1412-DR-449, 41 N.E.3d 719, 2015 WL 6777221 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2015), trans. denied (2016) (" Falatovics 2 "). In this appeal, Husband challenged the equal division of the marital estate. We concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in equally dividing the martial estate. Id . at *3. We also rejected Husband's attempt to relitigate issues regarding his interest in Parcels 1 and 2 and their valuation. Id . at *2. Accordingly, we affirmed the amended dissolution decree. Husband petitioned for transfer, which was denied on February 11, 2016.

[12] On February 15, 2016, the matter was certified back to the trial court. On March 14, 2016, Wife filed a motion to dismiss Husband's Trial Rule 60(B) Motions. Husband filed a response. In April 2016, following a hearing, the trial court granted Wife's motion to dismiss, finding that Husband failed to follow the appropriate procedure for bringing his Trial Rule 60(B) Motions, and that therefore he had waived his arguments and was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Section 1—The trial court did not err in granting Wife's motion to dismiss.

[13] Husband challenges the dismissal of his Trial Rule 60(B) Motions. His first Trial Rule 60(B) Motion alleged that Wife committed fraud in failing to disclose assets, and his Addendum alleged that Wife's appraisals of Parcels 1 and 2 were based on mistakes of fact and valuation. Trial Rule 60(B) provides, "On motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a party ... from a judgment, including a judgment by default, for the following reasons: (1) mistake, ... and (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party[.]" Trial Rule 60(D) states, "In passing upon a motion allowed by subdivision (B) of this rule the court shall hear any pertinent evidence."

[14] As an initial matter, we must resolve the parties' dispute as to the proper standard of review. Husband claims that this is an appeal of the trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B), which we review de novo. Wife contends that the trial court's dismissal of Husband's Trial Rule 60(B) Motions is effectively a denial, which we review for an abuse of discretion.

[15] We conclude that the trial court's dismissal of Husband's Trial Rule 60(B) Motions is effectively a denial. See Jahangirizadeh v. Pazouki , 27 N.E.3d 1178, 1181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (equating dismissal of Trial Rule 60(B) motion with denial). In general, we review a trial court's denial of a motion to set aside judgment for an abuse of discretion. Id . However, in this case the issue presented involves purely a question of law, which we review de novo. See Goodson v. Carlson , 888 N.E.2d 217, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (observing that when appeal of trial court's denial of motion to set aside judgment involves question of law, our review is de novo).

[16] Husband first asserts that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to follow the appropriate procedure for bringing his Trial Rule 60(B) Motions and therefore waived his claims and...