Christopher J. McElwee and Monday McElwee Albright f/k/a Monday Jones Albright, Attorneys at Law v. Michael Fish ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                        FILED
    OPINION ON REHEARING                                                        Jan 21 2020, 8:39 am
    CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Alice M. Morical                                           R. Brock Jordan
    Michael A. Dorelli                                         Christopher M. Trapp
    Patrick A. Ziepolt                                         Katz Korin Cunningham PC
    Hoover Hull Turner LLP                                     Indianapolis, Indiana
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Christopher J. McElwee and                                 January 21, 2020
    Monday McElwee Albright                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
    f/k/a Monday Jones Albright,                               18A-CT-2664
    Attorneys at Law,                                          Appeal from the Marion Superior
    Appellants-Defendants,                                     Court
    The Honorable Gary L. Miller,
    v.                                                 Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    Michael Fish,                                              49D03-1803-CT-8543
    Appellee-Plaintiff
    Sharpnack, Senior Judge.
    [1]   Michael Fish (“Fish”) has petitioned for rehearing, which we grant for the
    limited purpose to address the argument of the petition. Fish contends that we
    wrongly decided that the statute of limitations on his cause of action against
    Christopher J. McElwee and Monday McElwee Albright f/k/a Monday Jones
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-CT-2664 | January 21, 2020                    Page 1 of 5
    Albright, Attorneys at Law (collectively “McElwee”) began to run on February
    29, 2016, the date he learned that McElwee had transferred to 2444
    Acquisitions, LLC (“Acquisitions”) the surplus tax sale funds he had been
    ordered by the bankruptcy court to hold pending court order. Fish contends
    that the correct date for the beginning of the limitations period was May 9,
    2016, the date the trial court in the foreclosure action ordered Acquisitions to
    turn the surplus funds over to Fish.
    [2]   Fish argues, in effect, that until the foreclosure court ordered the turn over, he
    had no cause of action against McElwee.
    [3]   We do not agree.
    [4]   In the bankruptcy court, Fish made claim against the county officials who held
    the surplus tax sale funds and Acquisitions to have the surplus funds paid over
    to Fish. The bankruptcy court order directed the county officials to deposit the
    surplus funds with McElwee to hold pending further court order. The county
    treasurer and auditor were thus relieved of any further responsibility for the
    funds.
    [5]   Transfer of the surplus by McElwee to his firm and Acquisitions effectively
    created two causes of action for Fish: one against Acquisitions for the surplus
    funds now in its possession; and one against McElwee for unlawful transfer of
    the funds to Acquisitions. Success in each had a common requirement that
    Fish was entitled to the surplus funds.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-CT-2664 | January 21, 2020   Page 2 of 5
    [6]    Because the surplus tax sale funds were no longer held by the county treasurer
    and auditor, the administrative procedure set out in Indiana Code section 6-1.1-
    24-7 did not apply. As this court noted in affirming the trial court order against
    Acquisitions to turn over to Fish the surplus tax sale funds, the administrative
    process was not the only way to claim surplus tax sale funds and a claimant
    could go directly to the trial court. 2444 Acquisitions, LLC v. Fish, 
    84 N.E.3d 1211
    , 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
    [7]    Indiana Trial Rule 20(A)(2) permits joinder of defendants,
    if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
    alternative, any right to relief in respect or, or arising out of, the
    same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
    occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all
    defendants will arise in the action.
    [8]    Indiana Trial Rule 18(A) permits joinder of claims as follows:
    A party asserting a claim for relief as an original claim,
    counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either
    as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, whether
    legal, equitable, or statutory as he has against an opposing party.
    [9]    Acquisitions had the surplus tax sale funds claimed by Fish because McElwee
    had transferred them to it. McElwee was no longer holding those surplus tax
    sale funds because he had transferred them to Acquisitions.
    [10]   Under the rules, Fish could have made his claims against McElwee and
    Acquisitions as a consequence of the transfer by McElwee and Fish’s claim to
    the surplus tax sale funds in one action. There was nothing to prevent Fish
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-CT-2664 | January 21, 2020   Page 3 of 5
    filing an action against McElwee prior to an adjudication of his right to the
    surplus tax sale funds. Judicial economy would be served by joining the claims
    in one action.
    [11]   Fish’s cause of action against McElwee accrued on February 20, 2016. His
    claim filed on March 1, 2018 is barred by the statute of limitations.
    [12]   With this additional discussion, we affirm our opinion of October 31, 2019. See
    McElwee, et al. v. Fish, 
    134 N.E.3d 1057
    (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). We remand to the
    trial court to grant McElwee’s motion to dismiss.
    Bradford, C.J., concurs.
    Brown, J., dissents with separate opinion.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-CT-2664 | January 21, 2020   Page 4 of 5
    FILED
    OPINION ON REHEARING                                                     Jan 21 2020, 8:39 am
    CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Alice M. Morical                                            R. Brock Jordan
    Michael A. Dorelli                                          Christopher M. Trapp
    Patrick A. Ziepolt                                          Katz Korin Cunningham PC
    Hoover Hull Turner LLP                                      Indianapolis, Indiana
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Christopher J. McElwee and                                  January 21, 2020
    Monday McElwee Albright                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    f/k/a Monday Jones Albright,                                18A-CT-2664
    Attorneys at Law,                                           Appeal from the Marion Superior
    Appellants-Defendants,                                      Court
    The Honorable Gary L. Miller,
    v.                                                 Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    Michael Fish,                                               49D03-1803-CT-8543
    Appellee-Plaintiff
    Brown, J., dissenting from grant of petition for rehearing. I would grant
    rehearing for the purpose of affirming the trial court, in accordance with my
    dissent expressed in the October 31, 2019 opinion in this case.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 18A-CT-2664 | January 21, 2020                   Page 5 of 5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18A-CT-2664

Filed Date: 1/21/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/21/2020