Indiana’s New Change-of-Judge Rule Ends a Longstanding Two-Change Practice in Dissolution Cases

A procedural rule change rarely alters the strategy of an entire category of litigation. Indiana’s 2026 amendment to Trial Rule 76 does exactly that.

For decades, parties in dissolution cases could obtain one automatic change of judge prior to entry of the final decree and another during later proceedings to modify that decree. Effective February 2, 2026, that two-stage framework is abandoned. A party now receives only one automatic change of judge pre-decree and beyond.

The significance of the amendment begins with the nature of the right itself. A change of judge request under Trial Rule 76(B) is freely taken, subject only to the rule’s timing requirements. The moving party does not have to prove bias, prejudice, misconduct, or any other cause. Nor must the party explain why a different judge is desired. The right to change is both automatic and non-discretionary.

Under the former Rule 76(B), a party was generally entitled to only one automatic change of change, but the rule separately provided:

“After a final decree is entered in a dissolution of marriage case or paternity case, a party may take only one change of judge in connection with petitions to modify that decree.”

The Indiana Court of Appeals interpreted those provisions in Trojnar v. Trojnar, 656 N.E.2d 287, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). The court explained:

“Trial Rule 76 contemplates that a party may have one change of judge in connection with a dissolution proceeding prior to entry of a final decree … and one change of judge in connection with proceedings to modify that decree.”

The court further held that “[a] party’s change of judge pre-final decree does not preclude that party” from exercising the right to another change during modification proceedings.

The practical consequence was substantial. A party could obtain a new judge during the original dissolution case and then obtain another new judge years later when litigating custody, parenting time, child support, maintenance, or another post-decree issue.

With its recent amendment to Trial Rule 76, the Indiana Supreme Court has fundamentally altered that longstanding right. Rule 76(B) now only provides: “A change of judge is granted upon the filing of an unverified application or motion without stating specific grounds.” The former pre-decree and post-decree framework is collapsed in new subpart (D):

“A party is limited to one change of county and one change of judge in all civil cases, including cases where a petition to modify any final decree is filed.”

The Indiana Supreme Court confirmed the amendment’s effect in State ex rel. Frounfelter v. Cass Superior Court 1. The Court explained that the former rule permitted “one automatic change of judge before a decree was issued” and a second change in connection with proceedings to modify the decree. Under the amended rule, however, a party may no longer obtain a post-dissolution change after already receiving an automatic change of judge.

That clarification brings the amendment’s practical impact into focus. The change does more than reorganize Trial Rule 76. It eliminates the former rights recognized in Trojnar and forces parties to make a consequential strategic choice: exercise automatic change during the original dissolution case, or hedge for future post-decree litigation. What the party may no longer do is exercise the right at both stages.

It is rare for a civil rule amendment to have such a profound effect. The new limitation may promote judicial continuity, discourage strategic judge-switching, and mitigate forum shopping after a party has already litigated before, or obtained a prior change from, the assigned judge. For dissolution practitioners, the automatic change of judge is no longer simply an immediate tactical decision. It is now a one-time choice that may shape the case for years.