LLC v. TBF LLC (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Stefanie Joy Marten (a/k/a Stefanie Marten, Stefanie Martin, Stephanie Marten Beckley, Stepanie Marten) (Marten)¹ appeals the trial court's amended summary judgment order entered against her.² We dismiss because Marten forfeited her right to appeal by failing to file a timely notice of appeal and failing to offer any extraordinarily compelling reason to restore the forfeited appeal.

[2] This appeal stems from an underlying case in which the trial court granted summary judgment on September 27, 2023, in favor of TBF Financial, LLC (TBF) and against Jem Jewelers, LLC, and Stefanie Martin. In December 2024, TBF filed a motion pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(A) requesting that the court amend its judgment to correct the spelling of Marten's name and to add aliases. On December 23, 2024, the court issued its “Order Amending Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc,” which stated:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment entered in this cause of action on September 27, 2023, should be corrected to reflect Stefanie J. Martin's name as being Stefanie J. Marten aka Stefanie Joy Marten aka Stefanie Marten Beckley, and the Judgment Docket be corrected accordingly.

App. Vol. II p. 180. That order was entered into the Chronological Case Summary (CCS) on the same day.

[3] Months later, on May 7, 2025, Marten filed her “Verified Motion for Relief from Judgment and to Set Aside Amended Judgment” pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B), seeking relief from the trial court's nunc pro tunc order amending the summary judgment. On June 3, the court held a hearing on Marten's motion. On July 31, the court issued its written order denying relief, which was entered on the CCS the same day. See App. Vol. II p. 16.

[4] In her notice of appeal, Marten indicated that she was appealing the trial court's “Amended Summary Judgment [that] was signed on July 31, 2025, but was first entered on the [CCS] on November 26, 2025[.]” 25A-CC-3296, Notice of Appeal. The appealed order Marten filed was the court's July 31 order denying her motion for relief from judgment and to set aside the order amending the judgment. However, all of Marten's arguments challenge the substance of the court's underlying December 2024 order amending its judgment.

[5] Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(1) provides that a party who wishes to appeal must “initiate[ ] an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk ․ within thirty (30) days after the entry of a Final Judgment is noted in the [CCS].” If, however, a party files a motion to correct error, then “a Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days after the court's ruling on such motion is noted in the [CCS] or thirty (30) days after the motion is deemed denied[.]” Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(1). Additionally, Appellate Rule 9(A)(5) provides that “[u]nless the Notice of Appeal is timely filed, the right to appeal shall be forfeited except as provided by P.C.R. 2.”

[6] Here, the trial court issued its nunc pro tunc order amending summary judgment on December 23, 2024, which is reflected on the CCS on the same day. Marten had thirty days from December 23, 2024, to timely file her notice of appeal, and she did not do so. She also did not file a motion to correct error, which would have extended the notice of appeal deadline. Therefore, she has forfeited her appeal of that judgment.

[7] Further, Marten's Trial Rule 60 motion did not toll the deadline for initiating an appeal of the underlying judgment. See Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) (“A motion under this subdivision (B) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.”); In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 740 (Ind. 2010) (providing, “a motion for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) is not a substitute for a direct appeal”).³ We acknowledge that our appellate courts have discretion to reinstate a forfeited appeal if an appellant shows that there are “extraordinarily compelling reasons” to do so. State v. B.H., 260 N.E.3d 953, 959 (Ind. 2025) (quoting Cooper's Hawk Indianapolis, LLC v. Ray, 162 N.E.3d 1097, 1098 (Ind. 2021)). Marten, however, has not made that required showing. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as untimely.

[8] Dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court originally entered summary judgment against “Stefanie J. Martin.” App. Vol. II p. 177. The Appellant's substantive argument focuses on whether the trial court appropriately amended its summary judgment to correct the spelling of her last name to “Marten” and add aliases, including “Stefanie J. Marten aka Stefanie Joy Marten aka Stefanie Marten Beckley[.]” Id. at 180. Then, the Appellant herself uses multiple aliases in her appeal: on her notice of appeal, she listed “Stefanie Martin” in the caption but “Stepanie Marten” in the party information, see 25A-CC-3296, Notice of Appeal; and in the fact section of her brief, the Appellant explained that she “testified that her last name is spelled ‘M-a-r-t-e-n’ ” before the trial court, Appellant's Br. p. 8. We use the party name as recorded in Odyssey, our case management system, which is “Stefanie Joy Marten.”

2.   Jem Jewelers, LLC, does not participate in this appeal.

3.   Even if the court's order following Marten's Trial Rule 60 motion controlled the notice of appeal deadline, her appeal would be untimely. Marten contends her appeal was timely because the court's order amending summary judgment was first noted on the CCS on November 26, 2025. However, the record shows that the order denying Marten's motion for relief and the court's notation reflecting “Amended Summary Judgment entered” were entered onto the CCS on July 31, 2025. See App. Vol. II p. 16. If that order controlled, Marten's appeal would have been due on September 2, 2025. Thus, Marten's Notice of Appeal, filed on December 29, 2025, would still exceed the thirty-day deadline.

Scheele, Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.