Ind. TR. 52(A)). On the other hand, the HDC argues that we should review the trial court's decision using a de novo standard because the trial court misinterpreted the APRA. Appellant's Br. p. 10. HDC alleges that it never "denied" access to the records requested by MceDermott and in fact provided him with all the information he demanded. The HDC argues that since the APRA requires a denial of a request before suit may be brought to compel disclosure-and, according to the HDC, no denial ever took place-the trial court erred by not dismissing McDermott's complaint. Appellant's Br. p. 13. Because we find that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the APRA, we employ a de novo standard. South Bend Tribune v. South Bend Community School Corp., 740 N.E.2d 937, 938 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). II. The Access to Public Records Act In
holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that a trial courts statutory interpretation is given no deference on review holding that the district courts apa review of a sba size decision was not entitled to deference but that the agencys interpretation and application of its own regulations did merit deference holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference