Community Health Network v. Pamela D. Bails ( 2016 )

FILED
Apr 07 2016, 7:02 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Jenny R. Buchheit
Stephen E. Reynolds
Ice Miller LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Community Health Network, April 7, 2016
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1512-PL-02059
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Pamela D. Bails, The Honorable David J. Dreyer,
Appellee-Defendant Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49D10-1501-PL-002068
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-PL-02059 | April 7, 2016 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] Community Health Network (“Community”) appeals the trial court’s denial of
Community’s motion to correct error, which challenged the trial court’s order
vacating upon appeal from the Decatur Township Small Claims Court (“the
Decatur Township court”) an agreed judgment between Community and
Pamela D. Bails (“Bails”) and dismissing Community’s case against Bails.
[2] We reverse and remand with instructions.
Issue
[3] Community presents several issues for our review, which we consolidate into a
single issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied
Community’s motion to correct error.
Facts and Procedural History
[4] On June 3, 2010, in the Decatur Township court, Community filed its notice of
claim against Bails with respect to medical bills owed by Bails. On August 19,
2010, Community and Bails entered into an agreed judgment, whereby Bails
agreed to pay Community $400.55 to satisfy an underlying debt and $450.00 in
attorney fees, plus costs. (App’x at 39.)
[5] On August 26, 2010, Community filed a motion to initiate proceedings
supplemental to judgment. Bails responded with a motion requesting a
continuance on October 14, 2010. On November 23, 2010, Bails filed a motion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-PL-02059 | April 7, 2016 Page 2 of 8
to set aside the judgment. That order was denied on December 2, 2010. Bails
was subsequently ordered to appear before the Decatur Township court on
August 4, 2011, but failed to appear.
[6] On July 3, 2014, Community filed a second motion to initiate proceedings
supplemental in the Decatur Township court. On August 15, 2014, Bails filed a
motion seeking dismissal of the proceeding supplemental, contending that the
case was venued improperly. On August 19, 2014, Bails filed a motion
requesting discovery from Community. On August 21, 2014, the Decatur
Township court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss, and, on Bails’s
request, transferred the case to the Washington Township Small Claims Court
(“the Washington Township court”). The Decatur Township court stated in its
order transferring the case that the motion for discovery would be addressed by
the Washington Township court.
[7] On September 19, 2014, in the Washington Township court, Bails again moved
to dismiss. The Washington Township court denied these motions on
September 26, 2014. Subsequent to this, the judge of the Washington
Township court recused himself and provided the parties with a list of three
Marion County small claims courts, with each party to strike one from the list
so that the case could be transferred to the remaining court.
[8] Rather than respond to the Washington Township court’s request, on October
6, 2014, Bails filed a motion with the Washington Township court, in which
she requested transfer of the case to the Indiana Supreme Court for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-PL-02059 | April 7, 2016 Page 3 of 8
appointment of a special judge under Trial Rule 53.1(a). Bails cited as grounds
for her motion the August 19, 2014 date of the motion for discovery in the
Decatur Township court. That motion was not ruled upon by the Decatur
Township court, which stated that the motion would be addressed by the
Washington Township court. Because the Washington Township court did not
rule on the motion until September 26, 2014, Bails sought transfer of the case
and appointment of a special judge. Bails also filed a motion to dismiss,
contending that the case had not been transferred quickly enough from the
Decatur Township court to the Washington Township court.
[9] Because Bails did not comply with the Washington Township court’s request to
select a court to strike, the judge of the Washington Township court selected a
court to strike from the list, and ordered the case transferred to the Lawrence
Township Small Claims Court (“the Lawrence Township court”). On October
21, 2014, the Lawrence Township court accepted jurisdiction over the case and
scheduled a hearing for December 3, 2014. On November 10, 2014, in the
Lawrence Township court, Bails again filed a motion to dismiss the case.
[10] The Lawrence Township court conducted a hearing on December 3, 2014. On
December 5, 2014, the Lawrence Township court entered an order granting
Community’s motion to garnish Bails’s wages in satisfaction of the agreed
judgment. Garnishment commenced on or around January 5, 2015.
[11] On December 15, 2014, Bails filed a motion for extension of time to file an
appeal with the Marion Superior Court (“the trial court”). The Lawrence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-PL-02059 | April 7, 2016 Page 4 of 8
Township court granted the motion, and on December 26, 2014, Bails filed her
appeal.
[12] On February 2, 2015, the trial court ordered that the case be repled, in
conformance with Marion Superior Court Local Rules. On March 6, 2015,
Bails filed a motion with the trial court seeking to end the garnishment and to
have the agreed judgment set aside.
[13] On March 10, 2015, the trial court sent a notice of hearing, which scheduled the
case for a bench trial on August 20, 2015. By the time of the trial, the entirety
of the amount of the agreed judgment had been paid by means of the
garnishment order entered by the Lawrence Township court. On the day of
trial, Bails appeared, but Community did not. On August 20, 2015, the day of
trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Bails, ordered Community’s
claim dismissed, and ordered the reversal of the garnishment and repayment of
the funds to Bails, thereby entering judgment against Community for $850.50.
In a footnote, the trial court stated, “[t]he Court exercises its equity jurisdiction
by further finding laches, lack of notice, and failure to appear for trial as a basis
for judgment.” (App’x at 147.)
[14] On September 18, 2015, Community filed a motion to correct error. In
connection with the motion, Community provided affidavits from MedShield,
Inc., which handled bill collection activity for Community, and Derek Johnson,
who served as counsel for Community in this case. These affidavits indicated
that Community did not receive notice of Bails’s appeal or of the order to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-PL-02059 | April 7, 2016 Page 5 of 8
replead the case. In its motion, Community noted that it had not received
either the notice of appeal or the trial court’s order. Further, Community
argued that because the garnishment order had been entered upon an agreed
judgment, the judgment was not subject to appeal or modification.
Accordingly, Community requested that the trial court vacate its order and
reinstate the agreed judgment and garnishment order or, in the alternative,
allow Community to replead the case.
[15] No hearing was set, and the motion to correct error was subsequently deemed
denied.
[16] This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[17] Community appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to correct error. We
review a trial court’s decision on a motion to correct error for an abuse of
discretion, which occurs when the court’s decision is contrary to the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or when the court errs on a
matter of law. Rickman v. Rickman, 993 N.E.2d 1166, 1168 (Ind. Ct. App.
2013).
[18] Further, Bails has not filed an appellee’s brief in this matter. “When an
appellee fails to submit an appellate brief ‘we need not undertake the burden of
developing an argument’” for the appellee. Miller v. State, 19 N.E.3d 779, 783
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-PL-02059 | April 7, 2016 Page 6 of 8
1068 (Ind. 2006)). Rather, we reverse the trial court’s judgment if the appellant
presents a case of prima facie error, that is, error “‘at first sight, on first
appearance, or on the face of it.’” Id.[19] The judgment underlying the motion to correct error purports to dismiss a small
claims case filed by Community, which case had been resolved by an agreed
judgment and garnishment of Bails’s wages. An agreed judgment “does not
represent the judgment of the court. It is merely the agreement of the parties
consented to by the court.” Mercantile Nat’l Bank of Ind. v. Teamsters Union Local
No. 142 Pension Fund, 668 N.E.2d 1269, 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (citing State v.
Huebner, 230 Ind. 461, 104 N.E.2d 385, 387-88 (1952)). Thus, “absent fraud,”
an agreed judgment is not appealable. Bemenderfer v. Williams, 745 N.E.2d 212,
215 n.2 (Ind. 2001).
[20] The agreed nature of the judgment at issue here compelled a result other than
that reached by the trial court. While Community did not appear for trial or
replead in compliance with the trial court’s order, the parties’ mutual decision
to enter into an agreed judgment precluded appellate review—let alone the
dismissal of the underlying case and a judgment against Community requiring
its return of monies garnished in satisfaction of the judgment.
[21] Based upon this, we conclude that the trial court erred when it dismissed
Community’s case, vacated the agreed judgment, and ordered damages in favor
of Bails. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the trial court, with
instructions to reinstate the agreed judgment, vacate the judgment against
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-PL-02059 | April 7, 2016 Page 7 of 8
Community, and proceed with this case in a manner not inconsistent with our
decision today.
[22] Reversed and remanded.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1512-PL-02059 | April 7, 2016 Page 8 of 8