LaMotte v. LaMotte

200 N.E.3d 922

Crystal LAMOTTE, Appellant-Respondent

v.Stephen R. LAMOTTE, Jr., Appellee-Petitioner.

Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-DR-2608

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed November 30, 2022

Attorneys for Appellant: Holly J. Wanzer, Kyli L. Willis, Wanzer Edwards, PC, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Katherine A. Harmon, Jessie D. Cobb-Dennard, The Northside Law Firm, Westfield, Indiana

Pyle, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Crystal LaMotte ("Mother") appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to correct error requesting a new final hearing in the dissolution of her marriage to Stephen LaMotte, Jr. ("Father"). Mother specifically argues that her due process rights were violated because the trial court judge who issued the dissolution order did not hear the evidence or observe the witnesses. Concluding that Mother's due process rights were violated, we reverse the trial court's denial of Mother's motion to correct error and remand with instructions for the trial court to hold a new dissolution hearing.

[2] We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Issue

Whether Mother's due process rights were violated because the trial court judge who issued the dissolution order did not hear the evidence or observe the witnesses.

Facts

[3] Mother and Father married in August 1995 and are the parents of three children. Daughter S.L. was born in August 1998, daughter K.L. was born in December 2001, and son A.L. ("A.L.") (collectively "the children") was born in March 2007. Mother filed a dissolution petition in November 2018.

[4] Before the hearing on her dissolution petition, Mother filed a written request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. In November 2020, Magistrate Kimberly Mattingly ("Magistrate Mattingly") held a two-day dissolution hearing. The issues before Magistrate Mattingly were Mother's request for rehabilitative maintenance, custody of the children, parenting time with the children, and a distribution of the marital assets.

[5] During the hearing, Magistrate Mattingly heard testimony from Mother's physician, a vocational rehabilitation specialist, the Guardian Ad Litem ("the GAL"), a psychiatrist/custody evaluator who had completed a 117-page child custody evaluation that was admitted into evidence, two home appraisers, Mother, and Father. These witnesses provided conflicting testimony regarding property values, the best interests of the children regarding custody and parenting time, and Mother's need for rehabilitative maintenance. Following the conclusion of the hearing, Magistrate Mattingly took the matter under advisement.

[6] At some point before Magistrate Mattingly reported factual findings and conclusions thereon to the trial court judge, Magistrate Mattingly left her position.¹ In April 2021, Father filed a petition asking for a ruling on the pending issues. In this petition, Father explained that although Mother was requesting that the entire matter be retried, Father objected to a retrial. Father asked the trial court to either issue Magistrate Mattingly's ruling or to review the evidence and issue a ruling without the necessity of a new trial.

[7] Also in April 2021, Mother filed a request for a final hearing and an objection to Father's petition to rule on the pending issues. According to Mother, the "case ha[d] numerous contested issues regarding property division, disability maintenance, custody, and parenting time which issues should not be decided on a review of the record with no ability to assess witness credibility or weigh evidence." (App. Vol. 2 at 56). Mother cited several cases in support of her argument that "[t]he only proper remedy in this situation [was] to conduct a new trial because the credibility of the witnesses relate[d] to all issues before the successor judge." (App. Vol. 2 at 57). According to Mother, "[f]ormer Magistrate Mattingly ha[d] been the only judicial officer who [had been] able to assess the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and she [was] no longer a judicial off[icer]." (App. Vol. 2 at 57). Mother argued that her "due process rights require[d] that a judicial officer who [had] heard the evidence issue the ruling." (App. Vol. 2 at 57).

[8] In June 2021, Judge Marshelle Dawkins Broadwell ("Judge Broadwell") held a hearing on Father's petition for the court to rule on the pending issues and determined that it would hold an additional hearing limited to custody and parenting time issues. In July 2021, the GAL filed an updated report and recommendations.

[9] In August 2021, Judge Broadwell held the hearing limited to custody and parenting time issues. At the beginning of the hearing, Mother made "a continuing objection to the manner in which th[e] hearing [was] being conducted[ ]" and reminded Judge Broadwell that Mother had requested a new hearing on all issues. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 229). Mother further argued that, based upon the GAL's updated report, Mother needed to call additional witnesses, including the therapist that she had begun seeing after the November 2020 hearing. Judge Broadwell explained that she had read the transcript of the November 2020 hearing and was going to proceed on the limited hearing.

[10] At the hearing, Judge Broadwell allowed only Mother and Father to testify. Father questioned Mother about the custody evaluator's report that had been admitted into evidence at the November 2020 hearing and referenced it in his closing argument. In addition, Judge Broadwell allowed the GAL to explain the recommendations in her updated report. Mother and Father were also allowed to question the GAL but only about the updated report.

[11] Two months later, in October 2021, Judge Broadwell issued an order distributing the marital assets and denying Mother's request for rehabilitative maintenance. Judge Broadwell also awarded sole legal and physical custody of A.L. to Father and awarded Mother supervised parenting time with A.L.

[12] In November 2021, Mother filed a motion to correct error requesting a new final hearing. Mother argued that "it was error for the Court to deny her request to have the judicial officer who was issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law hear all the testimony and the evidence and that this error deprived [Mother] of due process of law." (App. Vol. 2 at 59). Judge Broadwell denied Mother's motion.

[13] Mother now appeals.

Decision

[14] Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to correct error requesting a new final hearing. The trial court has wide discretion to correct errors and grant new trials. Centennial Mortgage, Inc. v. Blumenfeld , 745 N.E.2d 268, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). We will reverse only for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion will be found when the trial court's action is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and the inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Id. An abuse of discretion also results from a trial court's decision that is without reason or is based upon impermissible reasons or considerations. Id.

[15] Mother contends that her due process rights were violated because "a successor judge made factual findings and legal conclusions without a trial de novo following the departure of the original judge who conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing but did not issue an order." (Mother's Br. 4). We agree.

[16] We addressed this issue in In re D.P. , 994 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In that case, the Department of Child Services ("DCS") filed a petition to terminate the father's parental rights. Magistrate Julie Cartmel ("Magistrate Cartmel") conducted a termination hearing wherein she heard testimony from the DCS case worker, the Guardian Ad Litem, and the father. These witnesses provided conflicting testimony regarding whether the reasons for removing the father's child from his care could be remedied in the future and whether termination was in that child's best interests. Following the conclusion of the hearing, Magistrate Cartmel took the matter under advisement.

[17] At some point before Magistrate Cartmel reported recommended factual findings and conclusions thereon to the juvenile court, Magistrate Cartmel resigned from her position as a magistrate. The case was transferred to Magistrate Larry Bradley ("Magistrate Bradley"). Magistrate Bradley did not conduct a new evidentiary hearing. Rather, he simply reviewed the record created during the previous evidentiary hearing and reported recommended factual findings and conclusions thereon to the juvenile court. The juvenile court approved Magistrate Bradley's factual findings and conclusions thereon and issued an order terminating the father's parental rights.

[18] On appeal, the father argued that his due process rights had been violated because the magistrate who had conducted the evidentiary hearing was not the same magistrate who had made and reported the recommended findings of fact and conclusions thereon to the juvenile court. We agreed and explained as follows:

Indiana courts have long held that "[a] party to an action is entitled to a determination of the issues by the jury or judge that heard the evidence, and where a case is tried by the judge, and the issues remain undetermined at the death, resignation, or expiration of the term of such judge, his successor cannot decide, or make findings in the case, without a trial de novo. " Wainwright v. P.H. & F.M. Roots Co. , 176 Ind. 682, 698–99, 97 N.E. 8, 14 (1912) (providing that a judge did not have a right to decide the issues presented in a case in which he had not heard the evidence, and, accordingly, the case should have been retried); see also Dawson v. Wright, 234 Ind. 626, 630, 129 N.E.2d 796, 798 (1955) ; State ex rel. Harp v. Vanderburgh Cir. Ct., 227 Ind. 353, 363, 85 N.E.2d 254, 258 (1949) ; Bailey v. State, 397 N.E.2d 1024, 1027 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). This is because due process requires that the trier of fact hear all of the evidence necessary to make a meaningful evaluation in a

...