• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Kalwitz v. Kalwitz, No. 46A03-0912-CV-574, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 20, 2010)

September 28, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

VAIDIK, J.
The Small Claims Rules make no provision for change of judge motions. A motion for change of judge in a small claims proceeding is therefore governed by Indiana Trial Rule 76 . . . .
In small claims proceedings, “[a]ll defenses shall be deemed at issue without responsive pleadings.”  Ind. Small Claims Rule 4(A). Thus, Obed Jr. and Rolene were not required to file a responsive pleading to Eugene and Sharon‘s counterclaim to close the issues. Pursuant to Trial Rule 76(C)(1), then, if Obed Jr. and Rolene wanted an automatic change of judge, they were required to make their request within thirty days from the date the case was placed and entered on the chronological case summary of the court as having been filed. The chronological case summary reflects that Obed Jr. and Rolene filed their claim on February 27, 2009, but they did not file their request for a special judge until August 10, 2009. Consequently, their request was untimely.
NAJAM, J., and BROWN, J., concur.

Read the full opinion

If the link to the opinion in this case isn’t available above, you can search for it at public.courts.in.gov/decisions

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs