Opinion
22A-EM-800
04-03-2023
Peter J. Bakas Appellant, v. Katherine Radinovic, Appellee.
ATTORNEY PRO SE Peter J. Bakas Crown Point, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Benjamin T. Ballou Emilie E.D. Hunt Hodges and Davis, P.C. Merrillville, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Lake Circuit Court The Honorable Marissa J. McDermott, Judge The Honorable Jewell Harris, Jr., Probate Commissioner Trial Court Cause No. 45C01-1809-EM-96.
ATTORNEY PRO SE Peter J. Bakas Crown Point, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Benjamin T. Ballou Emilie E.D. Hunt Hodges and Davis, P.C. Merrillville, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING
Bailey, Judge.
[¶1] Appellant Peter J. Bakas ("Bakas"), proceeding pro se, seeks rehearing on our memorandum decision of January 11, 2023, in which we affirmed the trial court's denial of Bakas's Motion to Correct error and grant of Radinovic's request for relief from the findings and judgment contained in her Statement in Opposition to Motion to Correct Error. In his Motion for Rehearing, Bakas asserts that we erred when we affirmed the trial court's ruling without requiring a new trial. We grant his Motion for Rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying the legal basis for our decision affirming the trial court judgment without remanding for a new trial.
[¶2] As we noted in our memorandum decision, Indiana Trial Rule 59(J) provides:
The court, if it determines that prejudicial or harmful error has been committed, shall take such action as will cure the error, including without limitation the following .. (3) Alter, amend, modify, or correct judgment; (4) Amend or correct the findings or judgment as provided in Rule 52(B).
We now note that Trial Rule 59(J) further provides:
In its order correcting error the court shall direct final judgment to be entered or shall correct the error without a new trial unless such relief is shown to be impracticable or unfair to any of the parties or is otherwise improper...T.R. 59(J) (emphasis added).
[¶3] Bakas failed to show that affirming the trial court's decision without ordering a new trial is impracticable, unfair, or otherwise improper. As we held in our memorandum decision, there was ample evidence to support the trial court's new findings-including its finding that Radinovic acted with "due care" for Father's benefit-and those findings support its judgment.
[¶4] We grant the motion for rehearing to clarify that we affirm the trial court judgment without remanding for a new trial based on Trial Rule 59(J). We affirm our initial memorandum decision in all other respects.
Riley, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.