Kevin L. Snyder, Appellant-Respondent,
Anastasia Snyder, Appellee-Petitioner .
from the La Porte Circuit Court The Honorable Thomas J.
Alevizos, Judge The Honorable W. Jonathan Forker, Special
Judge Trial Court Cause No. 46D01-1201-DR-1
Attorneys for Appellant Kristina J. Jacobucci Nicholas T.
Otis La Porte, Indiana
Attorney for Appellee Robert A. Plantz Merrillville, Indiana
Kevin L. Snyder (Husband) appeals from the trial court's
order dissolving his marriage to Anastasia Snyder (Wife).
Concluding sua sponte that this appeal is untimely,
& Procedural History
Husband and Wife were married in 1997 and have two children
together. Prior to their marriage, Husband and Wife executed
an antenuptial agreement (the Agreement). On January 3, 2011,
Wife filed a petition for legal separation, which was
dismissed approximately one month later when Husband filed a
petition for dissolution. During the pendency of the
dissolution proceedings, the parties submitted an agreed
order providing that the Agreement would be enforced subject
to a few deletions and revisions.
The case proceeded to a final hearing on June 18, 2013, at
which Husband and Wife disputed, among many other things, the
Agreement's impact on the distribution of five antique
cars, a motorcycle, and two trailers (collectively, the
Vehicles), which had been acquired during the marriage and
were titled in Husband's name only. Husband argued that
pursuant to the language of the Agreement, the Vehicles were
his separate property. Wife, on the other hand, argued that
the Vehicles fell outside the Agreement's definition of
separate property, and that they were therefore marital
property subject to equitable distribution by the trial
court. No evidence was presented at the hearing as to the
valuation of the Vehicles. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the trial court took the matter under advisement.
On March 30, 2015, the trial court issued its dissolution
decree, which was accompanied by written findings and
conclusions. The court dissolved the marriage, resolved
issues of custody and child support, distributed the bulk of
the marital estate, and ordered Husband to pay a portion of
Wife's attorney fees. The trial court also concluded that
under the terms of the Agreement, the Vehicles were not
Husband's separate property and were therefore marital
property subject to equitable division. Because no evidence
had been presented regarding the value of the Vehicles, the
trial court declined to distribute them at that time.
Instead, the trial court reserved that issue for a later
date, pending the presentation of further evidence.
Husband filed what he called a "Motion to Correct
Error" on April 29, 2015. Appellant's
Appendix at 121. After holding a hearing, the trial
court issued a written ruling on Husband's motion on
September 29, 2015. In the order, the trial court clarified
the effective dates of certain orders in the March 30, 2015
order, vacated a portion of that order dealing with college
expenses, and denied Husband's motion in all other
respects. Husband filed his Notice of Appeal on October 28,
2015, and this appeal ensued.
Although neither party presents the timeliness of
Husband's appeal as an issue, this court regularly
addresses such issues sua sponte. See Blinn v.
Dyer, 19 N.E.3d 821, 822 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014).
"Failure to timely file a notice of appeal, while not a
jurisdictional matter, nevertheless forfeits the right to an
appeal absent 'extraordinarily compelling
reasons.'" Id. at 822. (quoting
In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind.
2014)); see also Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(5).
Unlike issues of timeliness, issues concerning the finality
of appealed judgments are jurisdictional in nature. Ind.
Appellate Rule 5; Whittington v. Magnante, 30 N.E.3d
767, 768 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015). "Whether an order is a
final judgment governs the appellate courts' subject
matter jurisdiction." Front Row Motors, LLC v.
Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753, 757 (Ind. 2014) (citing Georgos
v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448, 451 (Ind. 2003)). "The
lack of appellate subject matter jurisdiction may be raised
at any time, and where the parties do not ...