MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 14 2018, 9:22 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Kevin L. Martin Jamie C. Woods
Carlisle, Indiana Christopher S. Riley
Thorne Grodnik, LLP
Mishawaka, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kevin L. Martin, November 14, 2018
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CT-680
v. Appeal from the Sullivan Superior
Court
Arvil R. Howe and Charles W. The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt,
Lahey, Judge
Appellees-Defendants. Trial Court Cause No.
77D01-1801-CT-15
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Kevin L. Martin brings this interlocutory appeal from the Sullivan Superior
Court’s order to transfer venue over Martin’s civil complaint against Arvil R.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-680 | November 14, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Howe and Charles W. Lahey to St. Joseph County. Martin raises three issues
for our review, but we consider only the following issue: whether Martin
challenges the Sullivan Superior Court’s order to transfer venue. As we
conclude that Martin has not in fact challenged that order on appeal, and as no
other issues are properly before us in this interlocutory appeal, we dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Following his conviction and sentence for murder, Martin became an inmate at
the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility in Sullivan County. There, he filed a
civil complaint against Howe and Lahey, his trial and appellate counsel,
respectively, during the criminal proceedings. Howe and Lahey both reside in
St. Joseph County.
[3] Howe and Lahey moved to dismiss Martin’s complaint pursuant to Indiana
Trial Rule 12(B)(3) and to transfer venue to St. Joseph County pursuant to Trial
Rule 75(A)(1).1 The trial court granted the motion and denied Martin’s
subsequent motion to reconsider. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Martin brings this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order to transfer
venue. “An appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed unless
specifically authorized . . . .” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d 191, 193
1
Trial Rule 75(A)(1) states that preferred venue for an action lies in the county where “the greater
percentage of individual defendants included in the complaint reside[.]” There is no question on the record
here that that county is St. Joseph County.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-680 | November 14, 2018 Page 2 of 4
(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. “The authorization is to be strictly
construed, and any attempt to perfect an appeal without such authorization
warrants a dismissal.” Id. Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A)(8) permits
interlocutory appeals of right following a trial court’s order to transfer venue
under Trial Rule 75. However, any issues outside the trial court’s ruling on the
interlocutory order “are unavailable on interlocutory appeal.” Curtis v. State,
948 N.E.2d 1143, 1147 (Ind. 2011); see, e.g., Baca v. RPM, Inc., 941 N.E.2d 547,
548 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
[5] Here, although Martin uses Appellate Rule 14(A)(8) to secure appellate review
over the trial court’s decision to transfer venue, the entirety of his argument on
appeal relates to an entirely different order on discovery issues. Martin only
nominally mentions the order to transfer venue, and even then the entirety of
his comment on that order is to note that he has simply “appeal[ed] the motion
to not lose his right to appeal . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 10. This is no argument
at all.
[6] The only issues that Martin may raise in this interlocutory appeal are issues that
relate to the trial court’s decision to transfer venue. Curtis, 948 N.E.2d at 1147.
But we must conclude that Martin wholly failed to present an argument
supported by cogent reasoning as it relates to that decision. See Ind. Appellate
Rule 46(A)(8). Accordingly, we dismiss Martin’s appeal.
[7] Dismissed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-680 | November 14, 2018 Page 3 of 4
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-680 | November 14, 2018 Page 4 of 4