Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Kristine C. Danz

[40] Both the lead opinion and Chief Judge Vaidik’s concurrence proceed on the premise “we must consider the interplay between T.R. 17(F) and T.R. 15(C),” (Op. at 780), and “this case turns on the interaction between Trial Rules 15(C) and 17(F).” (Op. at 776) (Vaidik, C.J., concurring). As the relation back provision of T.R. 15(C) does not apply to the situation before us, there is no such “interplay” or “interaction.” The trial court’s judgment may be affirmed by the proper application of T.R. 17(F) alone, and I accordingly concur in the result.

[41] T.R. 15(C) governs “amendment” of…