Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Majestic Auto Body , 128 N.E.3d 466 ( 2019 )

FILED
Jun 19 2019, 10:52 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Aaron T. Craft
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Indiana Bureau of Motor June 19, 2019
Vehicles, Court of Appeals Cause No.
18A-SC-2524
Appellant-Defendant,
Appeal from the Morgan Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Sara Dungan, Judge
Majestic Auto Body, The Honorable Terry E. Iacoli,
Magistrate
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Trial Court Cause Nos. 55D03-1711-
SC-1206 & 55D03-1711-SC-1207
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-SC-2524 | June 19, 2019 Page 1 of 10
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), appeals the
trial court’s partial denial of its motion for relief from judgment as well as the
subsequent nunc pro tunc orders requiring it to issue salvage titles to two vehicles
owned by Appellee-Plaintiff, Majestic Auto Body (Majestic).
[2] We reverse.
ISSUE
[3] BMV presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court
abused its discretion by partially denying its motion for relief from judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] In November 2017, Majestic purchased a 2013 Dodge Grand Caravan minivan
and a 2014 RAM 2500 pickup truck from Insurance Auto Auctions in Texas.
Majestic paid $1,648 for the 2013 Dodge minivan and $18,273 for the 2014
RAM truck. The National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS)
showed that in October 2017, Hurricane Harvey damaged the vehicles.
Consequently, the state of Texas designated both vehicles as junk and issued
salvage titles. The NMVTIS printouts indicated that the vehicles are
“incapable of safe operation for use on the roads or highways and [have] no
resale value except as a source of parts or scrap.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p.
46). The NMVTIS report also noted that the vehicles can never be “titled or
registered.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 46).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-SC-2524 | June 19, 2019 Page 2 of 10
[5] As per Majestic’s request, on November 10 and 13, 2017, the Indiana State
Police Department (State Police) inspected both vehicles. For the 2013 Dodge
minivan, the State Police reported that it had a “[n]one rebuild-able [sic] title,
however[,] vehicle shows zero signs of damage on non-roadworthyness [sic].”
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 20). As for the pickup truck, the State Police’s
observations were, “FLOOD VEH[ICLE]. CONTAINS NO DAMAGE.
APPEARS TO BE IN PERFECT CONDITION.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II,
p. 25).
[6] Based on the favorable inspections, on November 30, 2017, Majestic filed
notices of claim in the Morgan County small claims court under Causes 55D03-
1711-SC-1206 (Cause Number 1206) and 55D03-1711-SC-1207 (Cause Number
1207), seeking to obtain a clean title to the minivan and truck, respectively. A
hearing to address both claims was set for January 10, 2018.
[7] BMV received a summons for each Cause. On December 14, 2017, BMV
wrote two letters to the trial court, stating that it had received summons for
Cause Numbers 1206 and 1207 where it had been named as defendant;
however, based on the information provided by Majestic in the notices of claim,
it had been unable to “review, comply[,] or dispute the validity” of Majestic’s
claims since BMV’s system could not locate the vehicles in its system.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 26-27). As such, BMV stated that it did not have
any “possessory interest” in Majestic’s vehicles, it did not have a “position
regarding” whom the trial court should “award ownership rights” to, and that it
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-SC-2524 | June 19, 2019 Page 3 of 10
did not “intend to enter an appearance” under either Causes. (Appellant’s App.
Vol. II, pp. 26-27).
[8] On January 10, 2018, the trial court conducted a combined hearing for both
Causes. Majestic’s owner, Mark Shumaker (Shumaker) appeared pro se. BMV
was not present. Alleging that the 2013 Dodge minivan was in perfectly good
condition and had not suffered any water damage, Shumaker testified that he
“didn’t even have to pull the carpet . . . . no water has ever entered the vehicle.”
(January Tr. Vol. II, p. 6). Shumaker equally stated that the 2014 RAM truck
showed no signs of water damage and that there was nothing “wrong with it at
all.” (Jan. Tr. Vol. II, p. 8). Shumaker also offered the inspection reports
issued by the State Police in November 2017, declaring both vehicles to be in
perfectly good condition despite Texas’ designation of the vehicles as junk due
to water damage. At the end of the hearing, the trial court issued written orders
in Causes 1206 and 1207 (January 10 Orders) directing BMV to “produce a
clean title” for the 2013 Dodge minivan and the 2014 RAM truck, respectively.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 10, 14). The following day the trial court sent
notice of the orders to BMV.
[9] In April 2018, Majestic applied for a clean title for its vehicles from BMV. In
July 2018, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B), BMV filed duplicate motions
for relief from judgment under Causes 1206 and 1207. In both motions, BMV
stated that it had inadvertently failed to object to Majestic’s notices of claim.
BMV attributed its inadvertence and lack of attendance at the January 10th
hearing since Majestic’s notices of claim lacked the respective vehicle VIN
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-SC-2524 | June 19, 2019 Page 4 of 10
number, which, in turn, prevented it from assessing whether it had any
objections to Majestic’s law suits. BMV therefore requested the trial court to
vacate the January 10 Orders which required it to issue clean titles to Majestic’s
vehicles. In support of its motions for relief, BMV submitted NMVTIS
printouts which showed that Texas had designated both vehicles as junk, due to
water damage in October 2017. Additionally, BMV claimed the January 10
Orders violated Indiana Code section 9-22-3-18, which prohibits titling of a
vehicle in Indiana if the vehicle has been designated by another state or
jurisdiction to be junked, dismantled, scrapped, or destroyed. A week later the
trial court issued an order scheduling a hearing for September 19, 2018.
[10] On September 19, 2018, Majestic appeared by counsel, but BMV was not
present. At the start of the hearing, the trial court explained that, BMV,
through no fault of its own, had no actual notice of the hearing since BMV’s
attorney “didn’t get listed as an attorney” of record. (September Tr. Vol. II, p.
8). Nevertheless, the trial court proceeded with the hearing. During the
hearing, the trial court raised its concern that Majestic’s vehicles had been
issued “salvaged [sic] titles” in Texas, and that under “Indiana Code, a vehicle
that’s been designated junk, dismantled, scrap, destroyed, or any similar
designation” cannot “be given a clean title in the [s]tate of Indiana.” (Sept. Tr.
p. 4). The trial court informed Majestic’s attorney that if he agreed that the
language in the January 10 Orders, which required BMV to issue a clean title to
its vehicles was erroneous, then it would issue nunc pro tunc orders under each
Cause and direct BMV to respectively issue a salvage title instead. The trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-SC-2524 | June 19, 2019 Page 5 of 10
court then stated that if Majestic’s counsel disagreed with its position, then the
matter would be rescheduled for another hearing so as to give BMV an
opportunity to appear and defend its position regarding issuance of any titles.
Majestic’s counsel settled for the issuance of salvage titles. On the same day,
the trial court issued nunc pro tunc orders under Cause Numbers 1206 and 1207,
changing the wording in the January 10 Orders—i.e., it directed BMV “to
produce a salvage title,” instead of a clean title, for Majestic’s vehicles.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 8, 12).
[11] BMV timely filed notices of appeal in both Causes. Pursuant to BMV’s motion,
on December 28, 2018, we consolidated Majestic’s cases. Additional facts will
be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[12] We initially note that Majestic failed to file an appellee’s brief. Where the
appellee fails to file a brief on appeal, we may, in our discretion, reverse the trial
court’s decision if the appellant makes a prima facie showing of reversible error.
Johnston v. Johnston, 825 N.E.2d 958, 962 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In this context,
prima facie error is defined as “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of
it.” Orlich v. Orlich, 859 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). This rule was
established for our protection so that we can be relieved of the burden of
controverting the arguments advanced in favor of reversal where that burden
properly rests with the appellee. Johnston, 825 N.E.2d at 962.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-SC-2524 | June 19, 2019 Page 6 of 10
[13] BMV contends that the trial court abused its discretion by partially denying its
Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. In general, a trial court’s
grant or denial of a motion for relief from judgment is reviewed under an abuse
of discretion standard. Beike v. Beike, 805 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App.
2004). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s judgment is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and inferences supporting the judgment
for relief. Id. The trial court’s decision with regard to a Trial Rule 60(B)
motion is given substantial deference on appeal. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v.
Engineered Roofing Systems, Inc., 859 N.E.2d 754, 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We
will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial
court. Id.[14] Here, BMV sought relief from judgment from the trial court’s January 10
Orders requiring it to issue a clean title for each of Majestic’s vehicles.
Following a hearing in September 2018, the trial court did not fully vacate its
prior order; instead, the trial court issued nunc pro tunc orders under both Causes
and required BMV to issue a salvage title to each of Majestic’s vehicles.
[15] BMV argues that although the trial court acted well within its discretion by
granting it partial relief and modifying the January 10 Orders, i.e., requiring it to
issue salvage titles instead of clean titles—the trial court still acted contrary to
law by requiring BMV to issue salvage titles to Majestic’s vehicles. Referencing
Indiana Code section 9-22-3-18, BMV argues that the statute prohibits it from
issuing a title to a vehicle that has been declared as junk, dismantled, scrap, or
destroyed by any state or jurisdiction, therefore, the trial court’s nunc pro tunc
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-SC-2524 | June 19, 2019 Page 7 of 10
orders requiring BMV to issue salvage titles to Majestic’s vehicles is contrary to
the law.
[16] The interpretation of a statute is a question of law which we review de novo.
Nash v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1060, 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. The
best evidence of legislative intent is the language of the statute, giving all words
their plain and ordinary meaning unless otherwise indicated by the statute.
Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 77 (Ind. 2001). We will presume that the
legislature intended the language used in the statute to be applied logically and
to avoid an unjust or absurd result. Nash, 881 N.E.2d at 1063.
[17] Indiana Code section 9-22-3-18 provides
A vehicle that has been designated “JUNK”, “DISMANTLED”,
“SCRAP”, “DESTROYED”, or any similar designation in
another state or jurisdiction shall not be titled in Indiana. 1
1
We commend the State for taping into its creative juices and comparing this case to the classic episode of
Barney’s First Car in The Andy Griffith show. See, The Andy Griffith Show: Barney’s First Car.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0512451/ (last visited May 20, 2019). In that episode, the lovable Barney Fife empties
his life savings to purchase his first car, a 1954 Ford. The seller purports to be an elderly widow struggling to
part with her late husband’s vehicle, but unbeknownst to Barney Fife, the seller is a member of a gang that
dishonestly sells stolen old vehicles as good-condition cars. The State argues that to prevent Hoosiers from
finding themselves in Barney Fife’s shoes, the General Assembly enacted Ind. Code § 9-22-3-18, and that the
aim of the statute is to ensure Indiana citizens are not duped into buying vehicles that have been declared as
junk by other states.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-SC-2524 | June 19, 2019 Page 8 of 10
[18] BMV maintains that the “trial court misapprehended section 18” by ordering it
to issue a salvage title for the 2013 Dodge minivan and the 2014 RAM truck.
(Appellant’s Br. p. 13). The evidence undeniably establishes that the vehicles
had been damaged by a flood, and Texas had designated both vehicles as junk
in October 2017. Notwithstanding the State Police’s conclusion that the
vehicles seemed roadworthy and showed no apparent signs of damage, Indiana
Code section 9-22-3-18 is clear that a vehicle which has been designated as
junk, dismantled, scrap, destroyed or any similar designation in another state or
jurisdiction cannot be titled in Indiana. Instead of vacating the January 10
Orders which required BMV to issue clean titles to Majestic, the trial court
issued nunc pro tunc orders and ordered BMV to furnish salvage titles to Majestic
instead. The trial court reasoned that, because Texas had issued salvage titles
to the vehicles, they should therefore receive similar titles in Indiana. However,
under the plain and unambiguous terms of Indiana Code section 9-22-3-18,
Majestic’s vehicles cannot be titled in Indiana since Texas had designated them
as junk vehicles.
[19] Since the titling of vehicles that have been designated as junk by another state is
not authorized by statute, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion
by not granting BMV full relief to its motion for relief. Accordingly, we reverse
the trial court’s nunc pro tunc orders requiring BMV to issue salvage titles to
Majestic’s 2013 Dodge minivan and 2014 RAM truck.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-SC-2524 | June 19, 2019 Page 9 of 10
CONCLUSION
[20] For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court’s partial denial of BMV’s T.R.
60(B) motion for relief from judgment and remand with instructions to the trial
court to vacate the nunc pro tunc orders.
[21] Reversed and remanded with instructions.
[22] Bailey, J. and Pyle, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-SC-2524 | June 19, 2019 Page 10 of 10