Moreover, venue can be waived in Indiana if a timely objection is not made within 23 days of service. Claycomb v. Simpson, 572 N.E.2d 546, 547 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991); T.R. 75(A). Plaintiff did not timely object to venue.
See also Baker v. Sihsmann, 315 N.E.2d at 387 ("Rule 6(E) was applied to extend the twenty-day response period declared in a summons to begin the day after receipt of the summons."); Ind. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n v. W-W Assoc., Inc., 284 N.E.2d 534, 536 (Ind.Ct.App. 1972) (concluding that twenty day period in Trial Rule 6(C) commenced running on date attorney general received service of a copy of the complaint). But see Claycomb v. Simpson, 572 N.E.2d 546, 547 (Ind.Ct.App. 1991) (holding court properly denied untimely Rule 12(B)(3) motion and calculating twenty-three day period for filing motion from date complaint was filed where service of complaint was by certified mail). Chalmers v. Market's Estate, 397 N.E.2d 636 (Ind.Ct.App. 1979), is inapposite.
Despite his compliance with the trial court's express order to respond, Paraservices argued, and the trial court agreed that Wright's T.R. 12(B)(3) motion to transfer venue was untimely because it was made more than twenty days after service of the complaint. Relying on the language of T.R. 6 that requires such motions be made within twenty days of service of the prior pleading and our holding in Claycomb v. Simpson, 572 N.E.2d 546, 547 (Ind.Ct.App. 1991) acknowledging this rule, Paraservices argues the timeliness of the motion should be measured from the date of the complaint. It states setting aside the default judgment does not "reset the clock" for T.R. 12(B) motions.