Rule 59.Motion to correct error

Trial Rule 59 governs Indiana’s motion to correct error — a request that goes back to the same judge who handled the case, asking that judge to fix a mistake before anyone appeals to a higher court. For most claims of trial-court error, filing this motion is optional: a party who has properly preserved an issue during the case can go straight to the Court of Appeals and raise it directly in the appellate brief. The motion becomes mandatory only for two specific situations — newly discovered evidence (including alleged juror misconduct) that could not have been found and produced at trial with reasonable diligence and that can still be produced within thirty days of final judgment, and a claim that a jury’s verdict was excessive or inadequate. Either the trial court itself or any party may raise the motion, and it must be filed no later than thirty days after entry of final judgment is noted in the case’s Chronological Case Summary. Whatever error a party raises has to be spelled out specifically, with the facts and grounds behind it, rather than described in general terms or in language borrowed from the rule itself.

Once a motion to correct error is filed, the opposing side has fifteen days after service to file a statement in opposition, arguing either that the judgment should stand or that it is entitled to different relief of its own. If granting the motion means modifying or setting aside the final judgment, that new ruling itself becomes an appealable order. Losing the motion does not close off an opponent’s arguments, either: a party who defeated a motion to correct error in the trial court can still defend the judgment on any ground, or raise entirely new grounds — including the newly-discovered-evidence and excessive-damages grounds that would otherwise require its own motion — once the case reaches the appellate brief. That same cross-error option is available even when the opposing party skipped the motion to correct error altogether and went straight to a notice of appeal. A motion built on facts outside the trial record needs supporting affidavits filed with the motion, and the other side then has fifteen days to respond with its own opposing affidavits or its own motion to correct error addressing related relief.

The heart of the rule is the menu of relief a court can order once it finds prejudicial or harmful error: a new trial, entry of final judgment, alteration or correction of the judgment, amendment of findings, or — for a jury verdict found excessive or inadequate — entry of judgment for the correct damages, a new trial, or a new trial conditioned on the parties accepting an increased or reduced damages figure. The rule pushes courts toward fixing errors without a full retrial whenever that is practical and fair, and limits any new trial that is ordered to only the parties and issues the error affected. When a new trial is granted because a verdict or the court’s own findings do not match the evidence, the court has to explain itself with specific findings on each affected issue, stating whether the problem is that the result went against the weight of the evidence or that it was not supported by the evidence at all — two different standards that call for different treatment. A trial court that orders a new trial can also decide who pays for it, weighing what made the new trial necessary. One category of case is carved out entirely: orders about services, programs, or placement for children alleged to be delinquent or in need of services do not go through a motion to correct error at all — those follow a separate appellate procedure instead.