Kirsch, J.
After the trial court denied Anthony E. Boyd’s (“Boyd”) motion for an extension of time to respond to the summary judgment motion filed by defendants WHTIV, Inc. and Walter Tarr, IV (collectively “Employer”), and it thereafter granted Employer’s summary judgment motion, Boyd filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. He now appeals, raising two issues that we restate as:
I. Whether the trial court erred when it determined that Indiana Trial Rule 6(E), which extends by three days the deadline to respond following service by United States mail, did not apply to summary judgment proceedings and Boyd’s motion for extension of time to respond to Employer’s summary judgment motion therefore was not timely filed; and
II. Whether Boyd is entitled to appellate attorney fees relative to Employer’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of Appeal.
We reverse and remand.
….
I. Timeliness of Boyd’s Request for Extension of Time
This appeal presents the question of whether Indiana Trial Rule 6(E) extends the date by which the non-movant must respond to a summary judgment motion or request an extension of time to respond. Employer’s position is that any motion for extension of time to respond to a motion for summary judgment must comply with the thirty-day deadline provided in Indiana Trial Rule 56(F) or Trial Rule 56(I) and that the three-day extension of time provided by Trial Rule 6(E) does not apply. Upon review of the relevant statutes and recent case law, we disagree.
….
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
ROBB, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.