Crossroads Family Farms, LLC v. Agrifund, LLC (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 31 2019, 9:19 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Bradley J. Buchheit James R. Schrier
McNeely Stephenson Reiling Teder & Schrier, LLC
Indianapolis, Indiana Lafayette, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Crossroads Family Farms, LLC, December 31, 2019
et al., Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellants-Defendants, 19A-PL-2271
Appeal from the Hancock Circuit
v. Court
The Honorable R. Scott Sirk,
Agrifund, LLC Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
30C01-1804-PL-513
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2271 | December 31, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Crossroads Family Farms, LLC (“the LLC”) and Crossroads Family Farms,
Inc. (“the Corporation”) (collectively, “Crossroads”) challenge an order that
Agrifund, LLC (“Agrifund”), holder of a judgment against Central Midwest
Family Farms, General Partnership (“Central Midwest”), may in proceedings
supplemental pursue garnishment of funds that the Corporation may owe the
LLC, a garnishee defendant. Lacking jurisdiction of this discretionary
interlocutory appeal, we dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Central Midwest defaulted on a $1.46 million loan from Agrifund and, on July
12, 2018, Agrifund obtained a judgment against Central Midwest in the amount
of $429,047.93. In proceedings supplemental, Agrifund named the LLC and
the Corporation as garnishee defendants having funds belonging to Central
Midwest. In April of 2019, the trial court issued a garnishment order against
the LLC. Agrifund subsequently alleged that the LLC and the Corporation are
controlled by the same family members and that the Corporation should be
compelled to pay Agrifund any amount it owes or will owe the LLC.
[3] On August 27, 2019, the trial court entered an order providing in relevant part:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that [Agrifund] is entitled to
garnish funds that Crossroads Family Farms, Inc. may owe to
Crossroads Family Farms, LLC and such claim be and hereby is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2271 | December 31, 2019 Page 2 of 5
granted and set for hearing for Proceeding Supplemental @ 10:00
am on October 15, 2019.
Appealed Order at 1. Crossroads now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[4] “‘It is the duty of this Court to determine whether we have jurisdiction before
proceeding to determine the rights of the parties on the merits.’” DuSablon v.
Jackson Cty. Bank, 132 N.E.3d 69, 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Allstate Ins.
Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d 191, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied). The
appellate authority of this Court is “generally limited to appeals from final
judgments,” although “our Rules of Appellate Procedure also confer appellate
jurisdiction over non-final interlocutory appeals pursuant to Appellate Rule
14.” Ball State University v. Irons, 27 N.E.3d 717, 720 (Ind. 2015).
[5] Here, the parties acknowledge that the challenged order is not a final order.
However, Crossroads contends that the appeal is properly pursued according to
Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A)(1), which provides for an appeal “taken as a
matter of right” from an interlocutory order “for the payment of money.”
Authorization for an interlocutory appeal as of right is to be strictly construed.
Allstate, 801 N.E.2d at 193.
[6] “The matters which are appealable as of right under Appellate Rule [14(A)]
involve trial court orders which carry financial and legal consequences akin to
those more typically found in final judgments: payment of money, issuance of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2271 | December 31, 2019 Page 3 of 5
a debt, delivery of securities, and so on.” State v. Hogan, 582 N.E.2d 824, 825
(Ind. 1991). The “purpose of allowing appeals for the payment of money is to
provide a remedy to parties compelled to part with money which is tied up
awaiting litigation[.]” Schwedland v. Bachman, 512 N.E.2d 445, 450 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1987). Some examples include: Ferguson v. Estate of Ferguson, 40 N.E.3d
881, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (an order that a litigant deposit a bond payment
in excess of one million dollars with the trial court clerk within thirty days, to
stay the sale of a farm, an act that could not be undone if it occurred); Estate of
Meyer, 702 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (order to pay death taxes), trans.
denied; Lamon v. Lamon, 611 N.E.2d 154 (Ind Ct. App. 1993) (order to pay child
support); Schwedland, 512 N.E2d at 445 (order to deliver check into court); State
v Kuespert, 425 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (order to pay attorney’s fees as
a sanction under Trial Rule 37).
[7] Crossroads’s interlocutory appeal cannot be taken as a matter of right because
the trial court’s order did not “directly order one of the parties to pay a sum to
another party or into court.” Schwedland, 512 N.E.2d at 449. Crossroads was
not prevented from “the use of its money during pending litigation.” Id. at 450.
Instead, the trial court determined that Agrifund could pursue garnishment in
proceedings supplemental against Crossroads. As such, Crossroads was
required to appear at a hearing at which Agrifund might establish that certain
funds existed for garnishment. And Crossroads did not seek certification of this
discretionary interlocutory appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B). This
Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2271 | December 31, 2019 Page 4 of 5
and therefore we may dismiss upon our own motion. See Moser v. Moser, 838
N.E.2d 532, 534 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
[8] Dismissed.
Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2271 | December 31, 2019 Page 5 of 5