Moreover this court has underscored the mandatory character of the time limitation for the filing of briefs in interlocutory appeals by pointing out that such interpretation 2. effectuates the policy that such appeals be determined speedily. Union 403, Bartenders' Union v. Demetrakopoulos (1939), 215 Ind. 452, 19 N.E.2d 466. Furthermore, this court has held that the granting of extensions of time in which to file briefs does not negate the time limitation on filing of such briefs if the petition 3. for extension of time is not itself timely filed.
Dobeski v. State , 64 N.E.3d 1257, 1261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). See, e.g. , Mockford v. Iles , 217 Ind. 137, 26 N.E.2d 42 (1940) (motion for new trial); Local Union No. 403 v. Demetrakopoulos , 215 Ind. 452, 19 N.E.2d 466 (1939) (interlocutory orders); Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Alsop , 191 Ind. 638, 134 N.E. 290 (1922) (expiration of insurance policy); Bowen v. Julius, 141 Ind. 310, 40 N.E. 700 (1895) (acceptance of payment); Brown v. Buzan , 24 Ind. 194 (1865) (breach of contract); Tucker v. White , 19 Ind. 253 (1862) (stay of judgment); T.C. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development , 930 N.E.2d 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (filing of appeal); Jenkins v. Yoder, 163 Ind.App. 377, 324 N.E.2d 520 (1975) (statute of limitations); Liberty Service, Inc. v. McKim , 129 Ind.App. 464, 157 N.E.2d 582 (1959) (termination of lease); Keeling v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Indianapolis , 117 Ind. App. 314, 69 N.E.2d 613, 618 (1946) (notice of hearing); Davidson v. Lemontree , 71 Ind. App. 215, 123 N.E. 177 (1919) (motion for change of venue); Mathews Farmers' Mut. Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Moore , 58 Ind. App. 240, 108 N.E. 155 (1915) (duration of insurance coverage); Cheek v. Preston, 34 Ind. App. 343,
Furthermore, the rationale underlying the shorter time frame for interlocutory appeals is the need to expedite the process and avoid unnecessary delay in the subsequent and pending litigation. See, Local Union 403, Bartender's Restaurant Miscellaneous Hotel Employees Union v.Demetrakopoulos (1939), 215 Ind. 452, 19 N.E.2d 466. This exigency is simply not present in appeals from orders of a final nature in proceedings supplemental.
It follows that even were it to be considered that this is an appeal from an interlocutory order, appellant must fail since neither her petition for extension of time nor her brief were filed within the ten (10) day period following submission, as required by said Rule 2-15. Parfenoff et al. v. Kozlowski et al. (1941), 218 Ind. 154, 162, point 13, 31 N.E.2d 206; Local Union No. 403 of Bartenders, Restaurant and Miscellaneous Hotel Employees Union et al. v. Demetrakopoulos (1939), 215 Ind. 452, 19 N.E.2d 466; Local Union No. 414, etc., et al. v. Town Country Food Co., Inc. (1959), 129 Ind. App. 668, 159 N.E.2d 854. Appellant's assignments of error are seven (7) in number.
This being the case, appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. Union 403, Bartenders' Union v. Demetrakopoulos (1939), 215 Ind. 452, 19 N.E.2d 466. Appeal dismissed.