Opinion
23A-PL-1513
04-26-2024
Steve Chafin, Appellant-Defendant v. Patti Shade and Richard Shade, Appellees-Plaintiffs
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Benjamin L. Niehoff Slotegraaf Niehoff, P.C. Bloomington, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Michael L. Einterz, Jr. Mike Einterz Einterz & Einterz Zionsville, 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Monroe Circuit Court The Honorable Geoffrey J. Bradley, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 53C01-1909-PL-2200
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Benjamin L. Niehoff
Slotegraaf Niehoff, P.C.
Bloomington, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Michael L. Einterz, Jr.
Mike Einterz
Einterz & Einterz
Zionsville, Indiana
Bailey and Crone Judges concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mathias, Judge.
[¶1] Steve Chafin appeals the Monroe Circuit Court's judgment awarding money damages to Patti and Richard Shade following a bench trial. Chafin presents several issues for our review. The Shades move to dismiss the appeal alleging this Court's lack of jurisdiction. We agree with the Shades that we do not have jurisdiction over this case, and we dismiss Chafin's appeal without prejudice.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In September 2019, the Shades filed a complaint against Chafin alleging breach of contract and other claims related to a real estate transaction between the parties. Chafin filed counterclaims against the Shades. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for the Shades on some, but not all, of their claims. The trial court awarded damages to the Shades totaling $44,571. In addition, the trial court ordered the Shades to release to Chafin $5,000 held in escrow.
The trial court found that Chafin "prevails on the claim relating to natural gas installation and the Shades prevail on the initial claim relating to the placement of the access road and the counterclaim for the $5,000 escrow." Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 35.
[¶3] The parties' contract provided in relevant part that the "non-prevailing party" would pay attorney's fees to the "prevailing party." Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 35. The trial court found that each party had partially prevailed and awarded attorney's fees to each party commensurate with the fees expended to pursue their successful claims. The court ordered the parties to submit "detailed affidavit[s] of attorney's fees" for the court's consideration to "determine the proper distribution of attorney's fees" within thirty days. Id.
[¶4] Before the trial court made its attorney's fee decision, but after each party had filed its affidavit for attorney's fees, Chafin filed a motion to correct error. After that motion was deemed denied, Chafin filed this appeal. To date, the trial court has not ruled on the attorney's fees award.
Discussion and Decision
[¶5] The Shades argue that, because the trial court's judgment left the issue of attorney's fees to be determined, it is not a final, appealable judgment under Appellate Rule 2(H). As our Supreme Court has explained,
[a]ppellate jurisdiction "'is generally limited to appeals from final judgments.'" Ramsey v. Moore, 959 N.E.2d 246, 251 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fields, 842 N.E.2d 804, 806 (Ind. 2006)). A judgment typically becomes final when it "dispose[s] of all issues as to all parties, ending the particular case and leaving nothing for future determination." Id.; App. R. 2(H)(1).Pennington v. Mem'l Hosp. of S. Bend, Inc., 223 N.E.3d 1086, 1093 (Ind. 2024).
[¶6] Here, the trial court's judgment explicitly leaves the issue of attorney's fees to be determined at a future date, so it did not dispose of all the issues. Indeed, the issue of attorney's fees is hotly contested by both parties on appeal. The dispute is even more complicated given the trial court's determination that both parties are prevailing parties under their contract. Because we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, we dismiss it.
As Chafin points out, it was perfectly appropriate for the trial court to postpone a determination of attorney's fees until the prevailing party had been identified. But the judgment will not become final under Indiana Appellate Rule 2(H) until those fees have been determined.
As this Court has observed in the context of Trial Rule 54(B), in the interest of judicial economy we strive to avoid "piecemeal litigation" of issues before a case is final. See Paulson v. Centier Bank, 704 N.E.2d 482, 488 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998), trans. denied.
[¶7] Dismissed without prejudice.
Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.