17 N.E.3d 979
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Branham obtained a 2007 judgment against Newland Resources, LLC, but it was uncollectible due to 2004-2005 distributions depleting assets.
- In 2011 Branham filed proceedings supplemental and claims under the Victims Relief Act and RICO against Newland and numerous related entities and individuals.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to most defendants on statute of limitations and res judicata grounds; Branham appealed.
- The appeal was consolidated with Eckerle’s appeal; the court later remanded regarding Eckerle while affirming the main summary judgment ruling.
- Bankruptcy proceedings were reopened; the bankruptcy court indicated remaining issues were to be handled by the Boone Circuit Court, and Branham’s predicate-offense allegations were analyzed under accrual rules.
- The court held Branham knew by August 2007 that Newland’s distributions left assets <$10,000, and the 2007 judgment was final and enforceable; Branham filed its 2011 claims outside the two-year discovery period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improvidently granted | Branham argues accrual should be later due to finality of the 2007 judgment and discovery of injury after 2007. | Newland contends Branham knew of the injury and depletion by 2005-2007, so claims were time-barred. | Summary judgment upheld; statute of limitations bar affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wehling v. Citizens Nat’l Bank, 586 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. 1992) (accrual under discovery rule)
- Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. 2009) (accrual and burden on statute of limitations)
- Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind.2009) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
- Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Needler, 816 N.E.2d 499 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (factors for voluntary dismissal and attorney’s fees context)
- AutoXchange.com, Inc. v. Dreyer and Reinbold, Inc., 816 N.E.2d 40 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (summary judgment evidentiary standard and designation of evidence)
- Huff v. Biomet, Inc., 654 N.E.2d 830 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (conversion prerequisites and money as subject of conversion)
- Kopis v. Savage, 498 N.E.2d 1266 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (conversion principles)