(A) Time limitation for holding matter under advisement. Whenever a cause (including for this purpose a petition for post conviction relief) has been tried to the court and taken under advisement by the judge, and the judge fails to determine any issue of law or fact within ninety days, the submission of all the pending issues and the cause may be withdrawn from the trial judge and transferred to the Supreme Court for the appointment of a special judge.
Rule 53.2.Time for holding issue under advisement; delay of entering a judgment
Current through July 1, 2026 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceTrial Rule 53.2 lets a party remove a judge who tries a case without a jury, takes it under advisement, and then fails to decide any issue of law or fact within ninety days, transferring the case to a special judge appointed by the Supreme Court.
Full Text of Rule 53.2
(B) Excluded Time Periods. The time limitation for ruling on a motion established under Section (A) must exclude:
(1) Any period after which the case is referred to alternative dispute resolution and until a report on the alternative dispute resolution is submitted to the court; and
(2) Any period during which the court has permitted the parties to file post-hearing sub- missions. If the court allows post-hearing submissions, the court must make an entry on the Chronological Case Summary stating the date by which the parties are to file the sub- missions. The time limitation for ruling established under Section (A) must begin when all parties have filed their post-hearing submissions or when the deadline for submissions occurs, whichever is first.
(C) Exceptions. The time limitation for holding an issue under advisement established under Section (A) does not apply where the parties who have appeared or their counsel stipulate or agree on record that the time limitation for decision set forth in this rule does not apply.
(D) Time of decision. For the purpose of Section (A), a court is deemed to have decided on the date the decision is noted in the Chronological Case Summary.
(H) Waiver and tolling.
(1) If a requesting party files additional motions, correspondence, or pleadings after filing a praecipe, the party waives the right to remove the judicial officer from the case, and the prae- cipe is void and of no effect.
(2) Once a praecipe is filed, all time limitations are tolled until resolution of the praecipe.
Amendment History
This rule’s current text took effect February 2, 2026. For the full history of earlier amendments and adoption orders, see the Indiana Office of Court Services.
Plain-English Summary
Trial Rule 53.2 is a companion to Trial Rule 53.1, aimed not at individual motions but at whole cases. When a case is tried without a jury — including a petition for post-conviction relief — and the judge takes it under advisement to decide later, the judge has ninety days to decide every issue of law or fact still open. If the judge misses that ninety-day window, the submission of every pending issue, and the case itself, can be pulled away from that judge and sent to the Supreme Court for the appointment of a special judge.
The excluded time periods work the same way they do under Trial Rule 53.1: a case referred to alternative dispute resolution stops the clock until a report on that process reaches the court, and a court-permitted round of post-hearing written submissions stops the clock until every party has filed, or the court’s own filing deadline passes, whichever comes first.
Trial Rule 53.2 allows fewer ways out than Trial Rule 53.1 does. There’s no exception for a court that decides to fold an issue into the trial, and none for repetitive motions or motions to correct error — those categories don’t come up once a case has already been tried and taken under advisement. The single exception is a stipulation: if the parties who’ve appeared, or their counsel, agree on the record that the ninety-day limit won’t apply, it doesn’t.
For everything else — how a decision date is measured, how a judge can get one extra thirty days to decide, how a party pulls the case away, what report the judge has to file with the Supreme Court, and what happens if the requesting party keeps filing paperwork after asking for withdrawal — Trial Rule 53.2 borrows the exact procedure spelled out in Trial Rule 53.1. Filing a praecipe under this rule freezes every other deadline in the case until the praecipe is resolved, just as it does under Trial Rule 53.1.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean for an issue to be “taken under advisement”?
It means the judge has heard the case — tried without a jury — and is holding a decision on one or more issues of law or fact rather than ruling right away.
How is Trial Rule 53.2 different from Trial Rule 53.1?
Trial Rule 53.1 targets a judge’s delay in ruling on individual motions, with a thirty-day clock. Trial Rule 53.2 targets a judge’s delay in deciding a case that’s already been tried to the court and taken under advisement, with a longer, ninety-day clock.
Does the ninety-day clock apply after a jury trial?
No. The rule applies to a cause tried to the court — meaning without a jury — and taken under advisement by the judge, including a petition for post-conviction relief.
Can the judge get more time to decide?
Yes, using the same procedure available under Trial Rule 53.1: a judicial officer can add thirty days by noting the extension in the Chronological Case Summary and notifying the parties before the original ninety-day period runs out.
Can the parties agree to let the judge take longer?
Yes. If the parties who’ve appeared, or their counsel, stipulate or agree on the record that the ninety-day limit doesn’t apply, the court isn’t bound by it.
What happens once a case is withdrawn from the judge under this rule?
The Supreme Court appoints a special judge to take over the pending issues, and the original judge must file a written report with the Supreme Court describing the matters that were held past the deadline.
Is there a way to lose the right to withdraw the case after asking for it?
Yes. Filing additional motions, correspondence, or pleadings after filing the praecipe waives the right to remove the judge and voids the praecipe. Short of that, once a praecipe is filed, every time limit in the case is frozen until it’s resolved.
Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
official Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure (T.R. 53.2). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Indiana, under its inherent constitutional rulemaking power (reaffirmed by Ind. Code 34-8-1-1 and 34-8-2-1); originally enacted by the Indiana General Assembly in 1969. The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: Trial Rule 53.2 Indianaindiana ninety day rule judge decisionjudge taking too long to decide bench trial indianatime under advisement indiana court rulespecial judge appointment indiana delaylazy judge rule indiana bench trial