Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-DR-2046
02-28-2020
Debra J. Heath, Appellant-Respondent, v. Jeffrey L. Heath, Appellee-Petitioner
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Jacob A. Ahler Law Office of Riley & Ahler P.C. Rensselaer, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Jacob A. Ahler Law Office of Riley & Ahler P.C. Rensselaer, Indiana Appeal from the Jasper Superior Court The Honorable Russell D. Bailey, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 37D01-0209-DR-361 Crone, Judge. 2 [1] Debra J. Heath ("Wife") and Jeffrey L. Heath ("Husband") divorced in 2002, and the trial court issued an order dividing the marital property in May 2004. The May 2004 order purportedly awarded the marital residence to Wife and awarded Husband a $30,000 lien against the residence to be satisfied from its eventual sale. That sale was to occur within six months after the youngest child of the marriage graduated from high school. That child graduated from high school on May 16, 2016. [2] Thereafter, the parties filed cross-petitions for rule to show cause because, among other things, Wife had not yet sold or refinanced the house to satisfy Husband's lien. On June 5, 2017, the trial court issued an order on the cross-petitions that concluded in relevant part: In the event that [Wife] fails to refinance timely the martial residence and cannot pay off the balance of [Husband's] outstanding lien, then the residence shall be listed for sale with a realtor selected by both parties and shall be sold at fair market value. In this event, [Husband's] outstanding lien shall be satisfied from the sale proceeds of the residence and the balance, if any, shall be divided evenly .... Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 24-25 (emphasis added). This is when, in Wife's own words, the trial court "committed the error [in going] past the original property distribution" and "requiring the parties to split the remaining amount 3 of the sale proceeds" resulting in an award of "additional marital property" to Husband. Appellant's Br. at 11-12. However, Wife admittedly never appealed the trial court's June 2017 order. Rather, Wife brings the current appeal from the trial court's "most recent Order," and asserts that the trial court "abused its discretion by confirming" the alleged error committed by the court in its June 2017 order which improperly "modified [the original 50/50] property distribution order." Id. at 9, 11-12. In other words, Wife currently seeks appellate review of the merits underlying a judgment that was entered by the trial court more than two years ago. [3] We must decline Wife's request. Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(1) requires that a party initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of a final judgment is noted on the chronological case summary. A judgment is a final judgment if it disposes of all claims as to all parties, see Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H)(1), and the self-effectuating June 2017 order did just that when it disposed of all claims raised in the parties' cross-petitions for rule to show cause. Because Wife failed to file a timely appeal of the June 2017 order, she has forfeited her right to appeal that order and the issues finally decided therein. 4 Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(5). As Wife makes no assertion that the trial court's most recent order is erroneous for any other reason, we affirm it in its entirety. [4] Affirmed. May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.