Friedlander, J.
….
On appeal, the Millers contend that Danz’s argument that the substitution of her for John Doe #8 was not timely is at odds with the plain language of T.R. 17(F), which provides that “[w]hen the name or existence of a person is unknown, he may be named as an unknown party, and when his true name is discovered his name may be inserted by amendment at any time.” (emphasis supplied)….
….
In summary, I find that T.R. 17(F) permits the insertion of the name of a real party in interest “at any time.” In cases where the statute of limitation has expired and the opposing party raises the expiration of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, T.R. 15(C) provides the framework for determining whether the complaint against the now-named party, as amended pursuant to T.R. 17(F), relates back. See Crossroads Serv. Ctr., Inc. v. Coley, 842 N.E.2d 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
The party who seeks relation back under T.R. 15(C) bears the burden of proving that (1) the claim in the amended complaint arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original complaint; [Footnote omitted.] (2) within 120 days after the commencement of the action, the party to be brought into the action must have received notice of the institution of the action so that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits; and (3) within 120 days after commencement of the action, the party knew or should have known that absent a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party to be brought in by the amendment. Id.
….
Vaidik, C.J., and May, J., concur in result.