KEY POINTS | APPELLATE COURT DISMISSES APPEAL OF ORDER DENYING SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS BASED ON PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCY

1. The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently dismissed an appeal filed by H & S Financial, Inc. which sought review of an order denying H&S’s motion for supplemental proceedings to enforce an old judgment which H & S came to own. H & S Fin., Inc. v. Parnell, 214 N.E.3d 1030, 1032 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). Although H&S claimed it was entitled to pursue supplemental proceedings to enforce the 2003 judgment, the appellate court would not consider the merits of the appeal because H&S failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Indiana Trial Rule 69(E).

2. Under Trial Rule 69, H & S Was required to move to substitute itself as the party plaintiff as a prerequisite to moving for supplemental proceedings. Despite this requirement, H&S failed to “proffer testimony, affidavits, or an evidentiary exhibit” showing that it owned the 2003 judgment. As the Court noted, the order denying H&S relief “still listed C1 Center as the named plaintiff.”[i] For that reason, the Court concluded H & S was a non-party and the Court could not award relief to a non-party.

3. The Court also corrected errors that the lower court had made in its interpretation of Indiana Code Section 34-55-9-2(2) pertaining to Indiana’s statute of limitations. The lower court concluded the 2003 judgment expired in in February 2013, “ten years after the judgment was obtained.” The appellate court disagreed and distinguished judgment liens from the judgment itself pointing out the former expire after ten years, but the latter “is still valid” and “proceedings supplemental are available” for a total of 20 years from the judgment date.

[i] Parnell, at *1034.

Click here to read the full article