“No Collateral-Adverse-Ruling Bar” – The Indiana Supreme Court’s Clarification of Trial Rule 53.1 in State ex rel. Gary Thoe, et al. v. Marion Superior Court 5

Introduction

The Indiana Supreme Court’s 2025 per curiam decision in State ex rel. Gary Thoe, et al. v. Marion Superior Court 5 (Supreme Court Case No. 25S-OR-90) addresses a seemingly routine—but procedurally vital—question: When a trial judge fails to rule on dispositive motions within the strict thirty-day window imposed by Indiana Trial Rule 53.1, may a party’s praecipe for automatic withdrawal be defeated because the court issued some other ruling that happened to be adverse to that party?

Answering this question with a firm “No,” the Supreme Court held that an unfavorable ruling on a separate motion does not insulate a trial judge from Trial Rule 53.1’s mandatory transfer mechanism. The Court therefore issued a writ of mandamus, withdrew the underlying civil action (Mayhill v. Thoe) from the respondent judge, and appointed the Hon. Kurt M. Eisgruber as special judge.

Although the opinion is concise, its implications for civil-procedure practice in Indiana are significant: it re-centers the bright-line nature of Rule 53.1, delineates the limited administrative role of the Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”), and clarifies litigants’ obligations after filing a praecipe.

Summary of the Judgment

• Issue: Whether failure to rule on three identified motions for more than thirty days required automatic withdrawal under Trial Rule 53.1 despite the trial court’s earlier denial of the relators’ motion to continue.
• Holding: Yes. Rule 53.1 was triggered; the CAO incorrectly relied on State ex rel. Koppe v. Cass Circuit Court; the matter must be withdrawn and reassigned to a special judge.
• Disposition: Writ of mandamus granted; Hon. Kurt M. Eisgruber appointed special judge; original action otherwise terminated.
• Court’s Vote: Unanimous per curiam (Rush, C.J., not participating).

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Article I, § 12 of the Indiana Constitution. The Court begins with the constitutional mandate that justice shall be administered “freely” and “speedily,” grounding the mechanical deadline of Rule 53.1 in a broader constitutional promise.
2. Trial Rule 53.1 and Earlier Enforcement Cases. State ex rel. Crain Heating & Air Conditioning v. Clark Circuit Court, 921 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. 2010), and State ex rel. Koppe v. Cass Circuit Court, 723 N.E.2d 866 (Ind. 2000), are cited for two propositions: (a) an original action is the correct vehicle for enforcing Rule 53.1; (b) a party may not use Rule 53.1 as a collateral attack on an already-decided motion. The Court distinguishes the second proposition from the present facts.
3. Rule-Amendment History. Footnotes chart the shift of gate-keeping power from trial-court clerks to the CAO (2011 amendment) and renaming of the administrative office (2018). This history is central to refuting the opposing party’s claim that the clerk “denied” the praecipe.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

“While Koppe correctly notes that Trial Rule 53.1 praecipes should not be used to collaterally attack an adverse ruling, there is no indication from the record that a collateral attack happened here.”

The Court’s logic unfolds in four steps:

1. Identification of the Triggering Event. All six pending motions were heard on May 10, 2024. Under Rule 53.1(A) the judge had until June 10 to rule. No extension was requested; no waiver was obtained.
2. Praecipe Properly Filed. On June 16 Relators filed a praecipe specifically identifying three still-unruled motions. This action satisfied the only party-imposed duty under Rule 53.1(E).
3. Administrative Misstep. The clerk entered the praecipe on the CCS but apparently failed to transmit it to the CAO until March 19, 2025—nine months late. Nevertheless, Rule 53.1 treats the matter as withdrawn once a proper praecipe is filed; later administrative delays cannot restore jurisdiction to the trial judge.
4. Mistaken Use of Koppe. The CAO’s April 7, 2025 order refused withdrawal on grounds that Relators filed the praecipe after losing a motion to continue. The Supreme Court holds this reasoning misapplies Koppe, because Relators were not attacking the motion-to-continue ruling; they were enforcing the judge’s duty to rule on different motions. Therefore, the “collateral-attack” bar is inapposite.

The opinion also walks through Original Action Rule 3(A)’s six prerequisites, concluding that Relators satisfy each—particularly noting the absence of any appellate remedy and the “extreme hardship” of forcing a six-year-old case to trial before a judge who has lost jurisdiction.

3. Anticipated Impact on Indiana Practice

• Re-affirmed Bright-Line Deadline. Judges cannot rely on unrelated interlocutory rulings to circumvent the thirty-day clock. Practitioners should expect stricter adherence to the rule and a reduction in “informal” extensions.
• Clarified Role of the CAO. The CAO’s task is ministerial: confirm whether the designated motion remained undecided beyond the statutory period. Evaluating the motive behind a praecipe or weighing collateral rulings exceeds that mandate.
• Limited Duties of Parties After Filing Praecipe. Litigants are not required to police administrative transmission of the praecipe. Once filed, the burden shifts to the clerk and CAO; any failure there does not waive the party’s rights.
• Strategic Considerations for Future Litigants. Parties can confidently file a Rule 53.1 praecipe without fear that an adverse ruling on an entirely separate motion will nullify the automatic-withdrawal mechanism. Conversely, parties resisting withdrawal must demonstrate that the same motion identified in the praecipe was decided within the deadline.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Trial Rule 53.1

A procedural rule obliging Indiana trial judges to rule on motions within 30 days of hearing (or filing, if no hearing). Failure triggers automatic withdrawal of the case and reassignment to a special judge upon a party’s praecipe.

Praecipe

A written request—here, a one-page form—telling the clerk to initiate the Rule 53.1 withdrawal process. It must “specifically designate” the motion(s) allegedly delayed.

Original Action / Writ of Mandamus

An extraordinary proceeding filed directly in the Supreme Court (bypassing appeal) asking for an order compelling a lower-court judge to act or to stop acting beyond jurisdiction.

Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)

Head of the Indiana Office of Judicial Administration. Under Rule 53.1(E), the CAO decides whether the prerequisites for withdrawal are met after receiving the praecipe and CCS.

Collateral Attack

An attempt to invalidate a court’s ruling indirectly, via a separate procedure, rather than through direct appeal of that ruling. The Court held the Relators’ action was not a collateral attack.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Thoe supplies a crisp, authoritative reminder that Trial Rule 53.1 is self-executing and intolerant of delay. The Supreme Court eliminates any perceived “collateral-adverse-ruling” loophole, instructing both the CAO and trial judges that the only relevant question is whether the designated motion missed the thirty-day mark. By reinforcing this bright-line approach, the Court advances Indiana’s constitutional commitment to speedy justice, offers litigants clearer procedural footing, and fosters greater administrative discipline within the state judiciary.