Elson Ford, Jr. v. The Oaks Academy and Elizabeth Hamilton (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jun 13 2018, 10:41 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Elson Ford, Jr. Liberty L. Roberts
Indianapolis, Indiana Church Church Hittle & Antrim
Fishers, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Elson Ford, Jr., June 13, 2018
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1711-CT-2538
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
The Oaks Academy and The Honorable John F. Hanley,
Elizabeth Hamilton, Judge
Appellees-Defendants. Trial Court Cause No.
49D11-1702-CT-5870
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Elson Ford, Jr. appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint against The
Oaks Academy and Elizabeth Hamilton (collectively “The Oaks Academy”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1711-CT-2538 | June 13, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Ford raises two issues for our review, one of which we find dispositive, namely,
whether the trial court violated his right to due process when it granted the
motion to dismiss following a hearing without having given Ford notice of the
hearing.
[2] We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Ford and Simonna Woodson have one child together, J.F., and share joint legal
custody. They decided to enroll J.F. in school at The Oaks Academy. On
March 21, 2014, Woodson signed an enrollment contract for the 2014/2015
academic school year.1 Ford regularly took J.F. to school in the morning and
participated in school activities with J.F.
[4] Sometime in February 2016, Woodson filed for an order for protection against
Ford. On February 9, Elizabeth Hamilton, the Administrator at The Oaks
Academy, informed Ford that he would not be allowed to participate in school
field trips with J.F. or pick J.F. up from school at the end of the day. On
August 19, Ford attempted to pick up J.F. from school but was told that he
could not take J.F. home without Woodson’s consent. After a phone call to
1
Neither Ford nor Woodson signed an enrollment contract for subsequent academic years. However, the
record demonstrates that J.F. continued to attend The Oaks Academy and that Ford continued to pay
tuition.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1711-CT-2538 | June 13, 2018 Page 2 of 6
Woodson, Woodson directed the school to allow Ford to take J.F. home going
forward.
[5] On August 2, 2017, Ford, pro se, filed an amended complaint in which he
alleged that The Oaks Academy had breached the terms of the enrollment
contract when it prohibited Ford from picking J.F. up from school and from
participating in J.F.’s school events and that he had sustained damages as a
result of that breach of contract. Ford included a copy of the 2014/2015
enrollment contract signed by Woodson with his amended complaint.
[6] On August 21, The Oaks Academy filed a motion to dismiss Ford’s complaint
pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). In its motion to dismiss, The Oaks
Academy alleged that Ford has not stated a claim for relief because Ford is not
a party to the 2014/2015 enrollment contract and also because the contract
does not create any obligations regarding student pick-up or a parent’s
participation in school events.
[7] The Oaks Academy requested a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the trial court set the matter for a hearing. In the order setting the
hearing, the trial court directed the court clerk to send copies to all registered
counsel and to Ford. However, the CCS states that notice of the hearing was
provided only to counsel for The Oaks Academy and not to Ford.
[8] On September 5, Ford filed his response to the motion to dismiss. Along with
his response, Ford included a copy of a preliminary order establishing paternity,
a copy of a document signed by Ford that explains the balance of tuition due for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1711-CT-2538 | June 13, 2018 Page 3 of 6
the 2016/2017 academic year, and a copy of a document that lists tuition
payments made from August 1, 2014, through February 1, 2015.
[9] The trial court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on September 18, 2017.
Ford did not appear at that hearing and The Oaks Academy presented their
argument on the motion to dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial
court took the matter under advisement.
[10] On October 10, Ford filed a motion to reopen the hearing on the motion to
dismiss because he had not received notice of the hearing. On October 12, the
trial court granted The Oaks Academy’s motion to dismiss and denied Ford’s
motion to reopen the hearing. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[11] Ford contends that the trial court violated his right to due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1,
Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution. Specifically, Ford contends that he did
not receive notice of the hearing on the motion to dismiss and, as such, the trial
court violated his right to due process and the order dismissing his complaint is
void.
[12] As this court has previously held:
It is generally acknowledged that procedural due process includes
notice and an opportunity to be heard. Harper v. Boyce, 809
N.E.2d 344, 350 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). A party is denied due
process when he is denied the opportunity to argue his case to the
trial court after that court has determined it would hear
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1711-CT-2538 | June 13, 2018 Page 4 of 6
argument. Chandler v. Dillon ex rel. Estate of Bennett, 754 N.E.2d
1002, 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). This is particularly true for
service of process and other such notice of initial pleadings, but it
is also true of proceedings within a lawsuit. Abrahamson Chrysler
Plymouth, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 453 N.E.2d
317, 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
Bruno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 850 N.E.2d 940, 948 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
[13] Here, The Oaks Academy filed a motion to dismiss, which is a proceeding
within the lawsuit. As such, procedural due process required notice to Ford of
the hearing on the motion and an opportunity to be heard. And The Oaks
Academy does not dispute that Ford did not receive notice of the hearing.
Indeed, our review of the CCS indicates that only counsel for The Oaks
Academy was served notice of the hearing. While the trial court’s order setting
the hearing on the motion to dismiss directs the court clerk to send copies to
Ford, the CCS includes only two entries, which show that notice was sent to
the two attorneys for The Oaks Academy. But there is no corresponding CCS
entry to indicate that notice was issued to Ford.
[14] Nonetheless, The Oaks Academy contends that “the requirements of
procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed
by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection; that is if one’s life, liberty, or
property interest is at stake.” Appellee’s Br. at 9. The Oaks Academy further
contends that Ford was not entitled to the protections of procedural due process
because “the issues at stake do not implicate Mr. Ford’s life or liberty interest”
and because “Mr. Ford has not identified any state statute, ordinance, or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1711-CT-2538 | June 13, 2018 Page 5 of 6
contract that provided him with a property right” to pick J.F. up from school.
Id. However, The Oaks Academy has not presented a cogent argument that the
trial court’s dismissal of Ford’s complaint in which he alleged money damages
does not deprive Ford of his property interests. We hold that the requirements
of procedural due process apply and that Ford was entitled to notice of the
hearing.
[15] Because Ford was entitled to notice of the hearing on the motion to dismiss,
and because Ford did not receive any such notice, the trial court violated Ford’s
right to due process when it dismissed his complaint following the hearing. We
reverse the trial court’s grant of The Oaks Academy’s motion to dismiss and we
remand for further proceedings.
[16] Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1711-CT-2538 | June 13, 2018 Page 6 of 6