Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Peter J. BAKAS Appellant, v. Katherine RADINOVIC, Appellee.
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING
[1] Appellant Peter J. Bakas (“Bakas”), proceeding pro se, seeks rehearing on our memorandum decision of January 11, 2023, in which we affirmed the trial court's denial of Bakas's Motion to Correct error and grant of Radinovic's request for relief from the findings and judgment contained in her Statement in Opposition to Motion to Correct Error. In his Motion for Rehearing, Bakas asserts that we erred when we affirmed the trial court's ruling without requiring a new trial. We grant his Motion for Rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying the legal basis for our decision affirming the trial court judgment without remanding for a new trial.
[2] As we noted in our memorandum decision, Indiana Trial Rule 59(J) provides:
The court, if it determines that prejudicial or harmful error has been committed, shall take such action as will cure the error, including without limitation the following ․ (3) Alter, amend, modify, or correct judgment; (4) Amend or correct the findings or judgment as provided in Rule 52(B).
We now note that Trial Rule 59(J) further provides:
In its order correcting error the court shall direct final judgment to be entered or shall correct the error without a new trial unless such relief is shown to be impracticable or unfair to any of the parties or is otherwise improper ․
T.R. 59(J) (emphasis added).
[3] Bakas failed to show that affirming the trial court's decision without ordering a new trial is impracticable, unfair, or otherwise improper. As we held in our memorandum decision, there was ample evidence to support the trial court's new findings—including its finding that Radinovic acted with “due care” for Father's benefit—and those findings support its judgment.
[4] We grant the motion for rehearing to clarify that we affirm the trial court judgment without remanding for a new trial based on Trial Rule 59(J). We affirm our initial memorandum decision in all other respects.
Bailey, Judge.
Riley, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-EM-800
Decided: April 03, 2023
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)