Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos
2 N.E.3d 688
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Constantinos and Theodore are sons of Panayiotis Angelopoulos; Panayiotis died intestate in 2001. Under Greek intestacy law each son would be entitled to 3/8 of the estate.
- Beta Steel (Indiana-based) was owned by three offshore entities tied to the family; Theodore claims an inter vivos gift from Panayiotis transferred Beta Steel to him; Constantinos claims Beta Steel remained part of the estate.
- Constantinos litigated multiple actions in Greece contesting prior waivers and asserting inheritance/partnership rights; Greek trial, appellate, and supreme courts rejected Constantinos’s claims, finding Panayiotis had transferred Beta Steel to Theodore before death.
- After the offshore owners sold Beta Steel to Top Gun for $350 million, Constantinos filed suit in Indiana seeking recognition of a 3/8 interest, attachments, and related relief; defendants moved to dismiss based on comity/res judicata and other grounds.
- The Indiana trial court dismissed Constantinos’s claims, relying on comity/res judicata (and alternatively forum non conveniens), and also treated deposition materials designated confidential under a protective order as automatically excluded from public access.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal (res judicata/comity) but reversed the automatic confidentiality ruling, holding that Rule 9(H) procedures are required before restricting public access to court-filed materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior Greek judgments preclude Constantinos’s Indiana claims (comity/res judicata) | Greek courts did not decide the precise ownership-of-shares issue here; prior rulings leave factual/legal questions open | Greek judgments conclusively determined that Panayiotis transferred Beta Steel to Theodore; Indiana should give comity and bar relitigation | Affirmed: Greek final judgments preclude relitigation under comity and res judicata (both claim and issue preclusion) |
| Whether Theodore’s plea before Greek Supreme Court admitted ownership was not at issue | Theodore’s statements show the transfer mechanics were outside the subject matter, so ownership remains undecided | Theodore’s pleading, taken in context, confirms Greek courts found Panayiotis gave Beta Steel to Theodore; admission does not change legal effect of Greek rulings | Rejected: Pleading does not negate Greek courts’ explicit findings on ownership |
| Whether expert affidavits on Greek law raised a factual dispute preventing dismissal | Expert opinions create factual issues about what the Greek courts decided, requiring further litigation | The interpretation/impact of foreign judgments is a legal question; experts do not convert it into a factual dispute | Rejected: Experts cannot convert the legal question of the prior judgments’ import into a factual issue; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether deposition materials marked confidential under an agreed protective order remain excluded from public access without further process | Protective order should be enough to keep discovery-designated materials sealed when filed | Protective order alone does not satisfy Administrative Rule 9(H); court must follow Rule 9(H) procedures and require proof | Reversed on confidentiality: Protective order insufficient; remanded for Rule 9(H) hearing where defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that public access would cause substantial harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Brightpoint, Inc. v. Pedersen, 930 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (guidance on comity and dismissal where another jurisdiction has decided same subject matter)
- Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Herr, 834 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (res judicata principles: claim and issue preclusion explained)
- Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 895 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. 2008) (protective orders in discovery do not automatically exclude court-filed materials from public access; Rule 9(H) process required)
- Azhar v. Town of Fishers, 744 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (when a motion to dismiss is treated as summary judgment, parties must be allowed to present summary judgment materials)