Carol Sparks Drake v. Thomas A. Dickey, Craig Anderson, Charles E. Podell, and Duke Realty Corp. , 12 N.E.3d 875 ( 2014 )

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE
Barry A. Macey Julia Blackwell Gelinas INDIANA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Quincy E. Sauer Maggie L. Smith Donald R. Lundberg
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Caitlin S. Schroeder
Indianapolis, Indiana
James W. Riley, Jr.
Stephanie S. Chaudhary ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE
Indianapolis, Indiana 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
______________________________________________________________________________
In the
Indiana Supreme Court Jul 24 2014, 3:25 pm
No. 29S02-1407-CT-00483
CAROL SPARKS DRAKE,
Appellant (Plaintiff below),
v.
THOMAS A. DICKEY, CRAIG ANDERSON,
CHARLES E. PODELL, AND DUKE REALTY
CORP.,
Appellees (Defendants below).
_________________________________
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
_________________________________
July 24, 2014
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.