By following the procedure outlined in the prior version of P-C.R. 2(1), an appellant from a criminal conviction could (and still can), and an appellant from an adverse determination in other proceedings of a criminal nature arguably could (but now cannot), invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court over his or her particular case. See Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) ("Jurisdiction of a particular case refers to the right, authority, and power to hear and determine a specific case within that class of cases over which a court has subject matter jurisdiction.") See also Harp v. Ind. Dep't Of Highways, 585 N.E.2d 652, 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992); Behme v. Behme, 519 N.E.2d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Jurisdiction over a particular case is waived if not raised in a timely fashion.
Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888, 903-904 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004), reh'g denied, trans. denied; see also Baker &Daniels, LLP v. Coachmen Indus., Inc., 924 N.E.2d 130, 140-141 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (observing that counsel have a duty to keep apprised of the status of matters pending before the court) (citing Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) ("This court has held that it is the duty of an attorney and his client to keep apprised of the status of matters before the court.")), trans. denied.
"[I]t is the duty of an attorney and his client to keep apprised of the status of matters before the court." Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995).
The trial court questioned the mail processes which had led to lack of notice but also found that notice had been mailed and observed that counsel for Coachmen had had a duty to keep apprised of the status of matters pending before the court. See Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) ("This court has held that it is the duty of an attorney and his client to keep apprised of the status of matters before the court."). The trial court further observed that the "better practice" would have been for Coachmen's counsel to file a copy of the Standstill Agreement with the court.
"[I]t is the duty of an attorney and his client to keep apprised of the status of matters before the court." Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). While the filing of a brief one day late has been considered a minor violation of our appellate rules, the filing of a brief thirty-eight days late is not.
Rather, Cockrell proceeded to present evidence regarding his right to an easement of necessity, and the trial court entered a judgment on the merits. See Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). Because Cockrell's claim failed on the merits, Cockrell's request for an easement of necessity across Smith's land failed, despite Smith's absence from the trial.
"When a court lacks jurisdiction over the particular case, the judgment is voidable, requiring proper and timely objection to the court's exercise of jurisdiction or it is waived." Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1145 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). Grubnich has waived his jurisdictional argument by failing to raise it at the earliest opportunity — at the time of the trial court's March 9, 1999 order.
Nonetheless, the confusion has persisted and two different standards of review have been applied since 1982. In Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1143 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995), for instance, another panel of this court stated, "Where a trial court involuntarily dismisses an action after presentation of a plaintiff's case, we consider only evidence most favorable to the plaintiff and determine whether there was substantial evidence of probative value to establish the material elements of the plaintiff's complaint." That standard of review is inappropriate given the trial court's ability to weigh the evidence.
By contrast, jurisdiction of the case refers to the trial court's right, authority, and power to hear and decide a specific case within the class of cases over which a court has subject matter jurisdiction. Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1145 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). A judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the case is voidable, and requires a timely objection, or the lack of jurisdiction over the case is considered waived.
It is the duty of an attorney to keep apprised of the status of pending matters before the court. Sanders v. Carson, 645 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). An attorney has a duty to exercise due diligence by regularly checking court records to ascertain the status of pending cases and a failure by an attorney to perform this duty falls within the category of neglect.