Opinion
No. 29S02-1407-CT-00483
07-24-2014
CAROL SPARKS DRAKE, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. THOMAS A. DICKEY, CRAIG ANDERSON, CHARLES E. PODELL, AND DUKE REALTY CORP., Appellees (Defendants).
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Barry A. Macey Quincy E. Sauer Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Julia Blackwell Gelinas Maggie L. Smith Indianapolis, Indiana James W. Riley, Jr. Stephanie S. Chaudhary Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE INDIANA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Donald R. Lundberg Caitlin S. Schroeder Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE INDIANAPOLIS BAR ASSOCIATION APPELLATE PRACTICE SECTION Libby Y. Goodknight Matthew T. Albaugh Joel M. Schumm Stephen J. Peters Tyler D. Helmond Josh S. Tatum Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Barry A. Macey
Quincy E. Sauer
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Julia Blackwell Gelinas
Maggie L. Smith
Indianapolis, Indiana
James W. Riley, Jr.
Stephanie S. Chaudhary
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE
INDIANA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Donald R. Lundberg
Caitlin S. Schroeder
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE
INDIANAPOLIS BAR ASSOCIATION
APPELLATE PRACTICE SECTION
Libby Y. Goodknight
Matthew T. Albaugh
Joel M. Schumm
Stephen J. Peters
Tyler D. Helmond
Josh S. Tatum
Indianapolis, Indiana
Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court
The Honorable J. Richard Campbell, Judge
No. 29D04-0908-CT-2767
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 29A02-1302-CT-152
Per Curiam.
This matter is before the Indiana Supreme Court on a petition to transfer jurisdiction filed by the appellees pursuant to Appellate Rule 57, following the Court of Appeals opinion reported as Drake v. Dickey, 2 N.E.3d 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). One of the issues raised on transfer addresses footnote 2 of the Court of Appeals opinion. The footnote indicates the appellees failed to denominate as a cross-appeal an argument rejected by the trial court that the appellees contend is an alternative ground for affirming the summary judgment order.
Appellate Rule 9(D) permits an appellee to "cross-appeal without filing a Notice of Appeal by raising cross-appeal issues in the appellee's brief." Appellate Rule 46(D)(2) provides, "The Appellee's Brief shall contain any contentions the appellee raises on cross-appeal as to why the trial court or Administrative Agency committed reversible error." The Appellate Rules do not require the filing of a cross-appeal where the appellee does not seek reversal of the order or judgment appealed, but instead raises a ground for affirming that appears in the record and was rejected or not considered by the trial court or agency. Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, 975 N.E.2d 805, 813 (Ind. 2012) ("a prevailing party . . . may defend the trial court's ruling on any grounds, including grounds not raised at trial.").
Accordingly, the Court grants transfer and summarily affirms the Court of Appeals opinion pursuant to Appellate Rule 58(A)(2), with the exception of footnote 2, which is hereby vacated. Dickson, C.J., Rucker, Massa, and Rush, JJ., concur.
David, J., not participating.