Brian Denny v. Nathan Vanoy ( 2020 )

FILED
May 18 2020, 9:13 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Robert D. King, Jr. Thomas E. Rosta
David R. Thompson Metzger Rosta LLP
The Law Office of Noblesville, Indiana
Robert D. King, Jr. P.C.
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brian Denny, May 18, 2020
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CT-2576
v. Appeal from the
Marion Superior Court
Nathan Vanoy, The Honorable
Appellee-Defendant Marc Rothenberg, Judge
The Honorable
Burnett Caudill, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49D07-1806-CT-025033
Vaidik, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2576 | May 18, 2020 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] Brian Denny obtained a default judgment against Nathan Vanoy. Vanoy later
moved to set aside the default judgment based on excusable neglect, and the
trial court granted his motion. Denny now appeals.
[2] To set aside a default judgment based on excusable neglect, the movant must
establish the grounds for relief by affidavit or other evidence. Here, Vanoy
introduced no affidavit, testimony of witnesses, or other evidence to establish
excusable neglect. We therefore reverse the trial court’s grant of Vanoy’s
motion to set aside and remand this case to the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On February 26, 2017, Vanoy ran a red light and struck a car driven by Denny.
Tr. p. 4. On June 25, 2018, Denny filed a complaint against Vanoy in Marion
Superior Court. Vanoy was served on September 14, 2018. Id. at 2.
[4] On February 25, 2019, over five months after Vanoy was served, an adjuster
from GEICO (Vanoy’s insurer) called Denny’s counsel “completely out of the
blue” regarding the suit filed against Vanoy. Id. at 5. Denny’s counsel
confirmed that suit had been filed and that service had been perfected on
September 14, 2018. That same day, Denny’s counsel emailed the GEICO
adjuster a copy of the complaint, crash report, and proof of service. Appellant’s
App. Vol. II p. 38.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2576 | May 18, 2020 Page 2 of 7
[5] Two weeks later, on March 11, Denny moved for default judgment against
Vanoy, as no one had appeared for Vanoy since the phone call. The trial court
granted the motion on March 19 and scheduled a damages hearing for May 15.
On May 14, Vanoy, represented by an attorney at Metzger Rosta LLP, moved
to set aside the default judgment based on excusable neglect under Indiana Trial
Rule 60(B)(1). The motion to set aside alleges:
5. The claims examiner at GEICO Direct has stated that she
spoke with an individual at Metzger Rosta LLP on or about
March 1, 2019, regarding the lawsuit and a need to appear for the
Defendant in this case, but no documentation was forwarded to
counsel’s office at that time. The undersigned counsel was then
on vacation and did not return to Indiana until approximately
March 18, 2019.
6. According to the online docket, counsel for Plaintiff filed a
motion for default judgment in this case on or about March 12,
2019, or only about two weeks after sending the lawsuit
documentation to the claims examiner at GEICO. A copy of the
motion for default judgment was not sent to the GEICO
examiner by counsel.
7. On or about April 4, 2019, the GEICO Direct adjuster
contacted the undersigned counsel and inquired into the status of
the lawsuit, but counsel did not recall any prior conversation
regarding this case and did not have a copy of the applicable
lawsuit until it was then sent to him on April 4, 2019.
8. The undersigned counsel then checked the online docket and
learned that a motion for default judgment was filed by counsel
for Plaintiff in this case and that the case has been scheduled for a
damages hearing on May 15, 2019.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2576 | May 18, 2020 Page 3 of 7
Id. at 23. Vanoy argued that excusable neglect existed:
In this case, it is clear that (a) neither Vanoy nor Plaintiff sent a
copy of the lawsuit to GEICO Direct until late in February 2019;
(b) counsel filed his motion for default only two (2) weeks after
sending notice of the lawsuit and service on GEICO Direct; and
(c) there is some confusion as to GEICO Direct’s contact with
the undersigned counsel and/or his office to assign the file to
counsel in this matter in a timely manner after receipt of the
documents from Plaintiff’s counsel, as the adjuster contends she
spoke to a member of counsel’s firm on March 1, 2019, or only
four days after receipt of the documents from Plaintiff’s counsel.
Id. at 25. Vanoy attached an affidavit from himself only. The affidavit, however,
does not address excusable neglect; rather, it alleges that Vanoy had a
meritorious defense because he believed Denny “was exceeding the speed limit
at the time of the accident. It is also possible that he failed to take proper
control of his vehicle to avoid the accident or to take proper precautions to
avoid a collision.” Id. at 27.
[6] Denny filed a response, arguing that Vanoy presented no admissible evidence of
excusable neglect:
7. It is important to note that there is no admissible evidence
before this Court that a Geico claims examiner contacted defense
counsel on March 1, 2019, regarding this lawsuit and a need to
appear. “It is axiomatic that the arguments of [Defendant’s]
counsel are not evidence.” What’s more, the statement
attributed to the unidentified claims examiner is hearsay. No
Geico employee, or any other person, has submitted an affidavit
stating under oath that a phone call was placed to defense
counsel’s firm on March 1, 2019. Defendant has not produced
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2576 | May 18, 2020 Page 4 of 7
any phone records evidencing a call from Geico to defense
counsel’s firm. Defense counsel concedes in the motion to set
aside that defense counsel does not recall any such conversation.
And, Defendant has not provided an affidavit from anyone else
in defense counsel’s firm stating that another person in the firm
spoke with a Geico claims examiner regarding this case.
8. Given the complete lack of admissible evidence, this Court
cannot make a factual finding that Geico placed a call to defense
counsel’s firm on March 1, 2019.
9. Thus, the evidence before this Court is that Defendant was
properly served with the complaint and summons on September
14, 2018; that despite this proper service, Defendant did nothing
to appear and defend[] this case; and that Geico also did nothing
to defend this case, despite Plaintiff sending a courtesy copy of
the complaint to Geico.
Id. at 30-31.
[7] In August 2019, the trial court held a hearing on Vanoy’s motion to set aside.
Vanoy presented no evidence at the hearing; rather, he presented only
argument. See Tr. pp. 2-5. Thereafter, the trial court granted Vanoy’s motion to
set aside.
[8] Denny now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] Denny appeals the trial court’s grant of Vanoy’s motion to set aside the default
judgment. A default judgment may be set aside because of mistake, surprise, or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2576 | May 18, 2020 Page 5 of 7
excusable neglect if the motion to set aside is filed not more than one year after
the judgment was entered and the moving party also alleges a meritorious claim
or defense. Ind. Trial Rule 60(B)(1). The burden is on the movant to establish
the grounds for relief “by affidavit or other evidence.” Southside Auto. of
Anderson, Inc. v. Smith, 114 N.E.3d 551, 554-55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018); see also
Bennett v. Andry, 647 N.E.2d 28, 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (stating that to obtain
relief under Trial Rule 60(B), the movant must introduce “some admissible
evidence which may be in the form of an affidavit, testimony of witnesses, or
other evidence obtained through discovery”); Bross v. Mobile Home Estates, Inc.,
466 N.E.2d 467, 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (“The catalyst needed to obtain the
proper relief is some admissible evidence which may be in the form of an
affidavit, testimony of witnesses, or other evidence obtained through
discovery.”).
[10] An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to set aside a default
judgment for abuse of discretion, resolving any doubt as to the propriety of
default judgment in favor of the defaulted party. Wamsley v. Tree City Vill., 108
N.E.3d 334, 335-36 (Ind. 2018).
[11] Denny contends that Vanoy failed to prove excusable neglect by affidavit,
testimony of witnesses, or other evidence. Vanoy doesn’t dispute this; rather, he
says he presented “argument[]” that there was excusable neglect due to “a
breakdown of communication” between GEICO and Metzger Rosta LLP.
Appellee’s Br. p. 5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2576 | May 18, 2020 Page 6 of 7
[12] But argument isn’t enough. The basis of Vanoy’s claim that excusable neglect
existed is that a GEICO adjuster “contends she spoke to a member of counsel’s
firm on March 1, 2019.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 25; see also Tr. p. 3
(Vanoy’s counsel stating that GEICO “allegedly contacted” his firm on March
1, 2019). Vanoy, however, presented no affidavit or testimony from this
adjuster. With no evidence to show that the adjuster called Metzger Rosta LLP
on March 1, 2019, there is nothing to support Vanoy’s claim that there was “a
breakdown of communication.” This then leaves evidence that Vanoy was
served on September 14, 2018; that despite this service, Vanoy did not appear
and defend the suit; and that GEICO did nothing to defend the suit, despite
Denny’s counsel sending the complaint and related documents to GEICO. See
Appellant’s Br. p. 12 (noting that “Vanoy and his counsel strategically omit[ted]
in [Vanoy’s] affidavit any explanation for why the lawsuit went unaddressed
from September 1[4], 2018 through March 11, 2019, a period of [almost] six
months”). This is inattention, not excusable neglect. See Smith v. Johnston, 711
N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind. 1999) (“The judicial system simply cannot allow its
processes to be stymied by simple inattention.”). The trial court abused its
discretion in granting Vanoy’s motion to set aside the default judgment.
[13] Reversed and remanded.
May, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2576 | May 18, 2020 Page 7 of 7