MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Apr 19 2018, 9:06 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT APPELLEE PRO SE
Thomas J. Lantz Jacob N. Snowden
Montgomery, Elsner & Pardieck, LLP Westport, Indiana
Seymour, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Marlena Koerner, April 19, 2018
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
36A01-1711-DR-2641
v. Appeal from the Jackson Superior
Court
Jacob Snowden, The Honorable Bruce A.
Appellee-Respondent. MacTavish, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
36D02-1102-DR-44
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Marlena Koerner (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to
terminate Jacob Snowden’s (“Father”) parenting time with the parties’
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1711-DR-2641 | April 19, 2018 Page 1 of 3
daughter, K.S. (“Child”). Mother presents two issues for our review, but,
because we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal, we do not reach its
merits. We dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother and Father were married and had one child together, K.S. In April
2011, they dissolved their marriage. On September 28, 2017, Mother filed a
motion to terminate parenting time, whereby she moved the trial court to
“terminate” Father’s parenting time with Child due to his “emotional abuse” of
Child. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 14. The trial court initially set a hearing on
Mother’s motion for October 20. However, on October 17, the trial court
issued an order vacating the October 20 hearing, denying Mother’s motion, and
ordering the parties to participate in mediation on the issues of parenting time,
contempt, and child support. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[3] As this court explained in Bacon v. Bacon, 877 N.E.2d 801, 804 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007), trans. denied:
The Indiana Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in all appeals from
final judgments. Ind. Appellate Rule 5(A). A “final judgment”
is one which “disposes of all claims as to all parties. . . .” App.
R. 2(H)(1). A final judgment disposes of all issues as to all
parties, thereby ending the particular case and leaving nothing for
future determination. Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 451
(Ind. 2003). Whether an order is a final judgment governs our
subject matter jurisdiction, and it can be raised at any time by
any party or by the court itself. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1711-DR-2641 | April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 3
[4] Here, the trial court’s October 17, 2017, order neither disposes of all claims
between the parties nor ends the case. Indeed, the court’s order concludes with
instructions that the parties “submit to mediation within forty-five (45) days on
the issues of parenting time, contempt[,] and child support[.]” Appellant’s App.
Vol. II at 18. As the trial court’s order was not a final judgment,1 Mother
cannot appeal unless the order is an appealable interlocutory order, which it is
not. The order is not appealable as of right under Appellate Rule 14(A), and
Mother did not seek certification of the order for a discretionary interlocutory
appeal under Appellate Rule 14(B).2 See App. R. 14. Accordingly, we do not
have subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal.
[5] Dismissed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J, concur.
1
The trial court did not expressly determine that “there is no just reason for delay” or direct the entry of
judgment under Trial Rules 54(B) or 56(C). App. R. 2(H).
2
In her notice of appeal, Mother purports to appeal from a final judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 36A01-1711-DR-2641 | April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 3