Harjinder Singh, Navdeep Gill, Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3, SMHR Holdings, LLC v. SBJ Petroleum No. 1, LLC, SBJ Petroleum No. 3, LLC, Michael A. Jarard, Corinth Bishop (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Jul 22 2020, 9:57 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS
Patrick A. Schuster
Patrick A. Schuster & Associates PC
Crown Point, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Harjinder Singh, Navdeep Gill, July 22, 2020
Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3, Court of Appeals Case No.
SMHR Holdings, LLC, 20A-PL-540
Appellants-Plaintiff/Counter- Appeal from the
Defendant/Third-Party Defendants, Lake Superior Court
v. The Honorable
Bruce D. Parent, Judge
SBJ Petroleum No. 1, LLC, Trial Court Cause No.
45D11-1210-PL-79
SBJ Petroleum No. 3, LLC,
Michael A. Jarard,
Corinth Bishop,
Appellees-Defendants/Counter-
Plaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs
Vaidik, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] Harjinder Singh, Navdeep Gill, Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3, and SMHR
Holdings, LLC (“Appellants”) appeal from a judgment in favor of Michael A.
Jarard and Corinth Bishop (“Appellees”).1 Appellants argue that the trial court
erred by denying their Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Motion to
Recover Funds Turned Over After the Parties’ Settlement. We reverse and
remand for further proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The lawsuit underlying this appeal was filed in October 2012. The trial court
held a bench trial in February 2016 and entered final judgment on December
15, 2016. Among other things, the court ordered Appellants to pay $169,084 to
Bishop and $5,000 to Jarard. It also ordered Singh to pay Bishop $21,000 “for
the conversion of Bishop’s firearms.” Appellants’ App. Vol. II p. 43.
[3] Appellants appealed. See Case No. 45A03-1703-PL-511. They filed their brief in
June 2017. With extensions of time, Appellees’ brief was due on September 14,
2017. On that day, the parties filed a joint Notice of Settlement in the trial court
1
SBJ Petroleum No. 1, LLC, and SBJ Petroleum No. 3, LLC, were parties in the trial court and are
identified as appellees on appeal. However, they were not awarded anything or ordered to do anything in the
trial court’s judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 2 of 7
and then submitted a copy to this Court. The notice, which was signed by all
the parties, provided:
[The parties] hereby notify the Court that the above case has been
settled pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties.
1. The parties acknowledge that attempts have been made
to settle through counsel to no avail.
2. The parties have agreed to withdraw their appeals and
release each other mutually pursuant to that Agreement.
Id. at 45.2 A week later, based on the notice, this Court issued an order
dismissing Appellants’ appeal with prejudice.
[4] But that did not conclude the litigation. Back in the trial court, in February
2018, Appellants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and a
Motion to Recover Funds Turned Over After the Parties’ Settlement. They
alleged that Bishop had continued to attempt to collect on the original judgment
notwithstanding the September 2017 settlement agreement and that he had
received at least $4,298.59. They asked the court to (1) enforce the settlement
agreement and (2) order Bishop to return all funds he received after the
settlement. The trial court held a hearing on the motions and then, in
November 2018, issued an order denying the motion to recover funds and
2
The use of the plural “appeals” was an error. The only appeal filed after the original judgment was that filed
by Appellants.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 3 of 7
giving the parties thirty days to “complete the terms of the settlement
agreement.” Id. at 58. Specifically, the court explained:
1. On September 14, 2017, a Notice of Settlement was filed with
the Court which indicated that the parties had entered into a
settlement agreement. The terms of the settlement agreement
were not included in that notice.
2. The parties shall have time to and including December 14,
2018, within which to complete the terms of the settlement
agreement. Failure to do so will result in the original judgment
herein being reinstated.
Id.
[5] The parties made no further settlement filings in the trial court. Instead, on
December 12, 2018, Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3 (one of the four Appellants
here and in the first appeal) filed a notice of appeal. See Case No. 18A-PL-2964.
The notice indicated that the appeal was from a final judgment rather than an
interlocutory order. Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3 filed its brief on March 1,
2019, arguing that the parties “reached an oral settlement agreement” in
September 2017, that the terms of the agreement were “reduced to writing” in
the Notice of Settlement, and that the trial court erred by concluding that “[t]he
terms of the settlement agreement were not included in that notice” and
ordering the parties to “complete” the terms of the agreement. Corrected
Appellant’s Brief, No. 18A-PL-2964 (Mar. 1, 2019). Appellees did not file a brief
or otherwise appear in the appeal. In a memorandum decision issued on June
25, 2019, this Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 4 of 7
concluding that the trial court’s November 2018 order was not a final judgment
and noting that Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3 had not received permission to
pursue an interlocutory appeal. Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3 v. SBJ Petroleum No.
1, LLC, No. 18A-PL-2964 (June 25, 2019).
[6] The parties returned to the trial court. Based on this Court’s conclusion that the
November 2018 order did not constitute a final judgment, Appellants asked the
trial court to certify the order for interlocutory appeal. In December 2019, the
trial court issued its Order on Motion to Certify. The court did not certify the
November 2018 order for interlocutory appeal. Instead, it concluded that the
December 15, 2016 judgment “became this Court’s order” when “the parties
failed to enter a settlement agreement by the appointed date of December 14,
2018,” as directed in the November 2018 order. Order on Motion to Certify, No.
45D11-1210-PL-79 (Dec. 23, 2019). As such, the court reaffirmed the original
orders for Appellants to pay $169,084 to Bishop and $5,000 to Jarard and for
Singh to pay Bishop $21,000 for the conversion of Bishop’s firearms.
[7] Appellants now appeal once again.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Appellants renew their argument that the September 2017 Notice of Settlement
was “the final settlement agreement between the parties,” Appellants’ Br. p. 12,
and that the trial court erred by concluding that “[t]he terms of the settlement
agreement were not included in that notice.” They contend that the trial court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 5 of 7
should have granted their Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and
ordered Appellees to cease all efforts to collect on the original December 2016
judgment. They also argue that the court should have granted their Motion to
Recover Funds Turned Over After the Parties’ Settlement.
[9] Appellees have again chosen not to file a brief. When an appellee makes that
choice, we will not undertake the burden of developing an argument on their
behalf. Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006). Rather,
we will reverse the trial court’s judgment if the appellant’s brief presents a case
of prima facie error. Id. In this context, “prima facie error” means error “at first
sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id.
[10] Under that relaxed standard, we conclude that reversal is appropriate. The
Notice of Settlement, signed by all the parties, provided:
[The parties] hereby notify the Court that the above case has been
settled pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties.
1. The parties acknowledge that attempts have been made
to settle through counsel to no avail.
2. The parties have agreed to withdraw their appeals and
release each other mutually pursuant to that Agreement.
Appellants’ App. Vol. II p. 45. To be sure, this is barebones language. However,
it contains three terms that indicate a full and final settlement: (1) “the above
case has been has been settled pursuant to a settlement agreement between the
parties”; (2) “[t]he parties have agreed to withdraw their appeals”; and (3) the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 6 of 7
parties “release each other mutually pursuant to that Agreement.” Based on the
notice, we dismissed Appellants’ original appeal—the only appeal pending at
the time—with prejudice.
[11] During the hearing on Appellants’ motion to enforce and motion to recover
funds, counsel for Appellees argued that the Notice of Settlement indicated only
that “the parties were willing to leave the appeals” and that the release
language—“release each other mutually pursuant to that Agreement”—was
limited to Appellants’ appeal. Tr. p. 7. But Appellants’ agreement to
“withdraw” their appeal was just one part of the notice. The notice, which was
a trial-court filing that was only later submitted to this Court, indicated that the
parties had agreed to settle “the above case,” i.e., the trial-court case. And the
release provision included no language limiting it to Appellants’ appeal.
[12] In short, the Notice of Settlement provided that the parties had reached a
complete settlement of their dispute and that they had agreed to “release each
other mutually” from all claims and obligations. Therefore, we reverse the trial
court’s order reaffirming the original judgment and remand this matter with
instructions to vacate that judgment and grant Appellants’ Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement and Motion to Recover Funds Turned Over After the
Parties’ Settlement.
[13] Reversed and remanded.
May, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 7 of 7