Branham v. Varble
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 1966
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- On March 13, 2009, a consent judgment was entered in favor of Varble and Chastain against the Branham(s) for $4,350.75 plus $99 in costs.
- November 12, 2009, the parties appeared and an agreed garnishment order was entered; a status hearing was scheduled for March 30, 2010.
- At the March 30, 2010 hearing, the court learned no garnishment funds had been received; Quincy Branham testified to earnings of about $100 weekly from salvage work and ownership of a $2,500 truck, with $200 monthly truck payments.
- Shannon Branham testified she receives $674 monthly SSI and pays $400 rent; the couple contributes to food and utilities; the court ordered $50 monthly toward the judgment and five job applications per week for Quincy.
- The Branham(s), unrepresented, appealed the order; the appellees did not file a brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exemptions were properly considered | Branham: court should sua sponte protect exemptions for unrepresented debtor. | Varble/Chastain: burden remains on debtor to claim exemptions at the proceeding. | No error; burden on debtor to claim exemptions; court weighed ability to pay. |
| Whether repeated appearances and five job applications per week were authorized | Branham: court overstepped and scheduled unnecessary hearings and job applications. | Varble/Chastain: proceedings supplemental may require examinations to enforce judgment. | Reversed as to requiring five job applications per week; other aspects affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beard v. Indianapolis Fancy Grocery Co., 180 Ind. 536, 103 N.E. 404 (1913) (constitutional debtor protections require enabling legislation)
- Mims v. Commercial Credit Corp., 261 Ind. 591, 307 N.E.2d 867 (1974) (burden to assert exemptions; Mims permits court to consider exemptions where debtor is unrepresented)
- Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind.2006) (prima facie error standard for appeal; absence of brief may justify reversal)
- Kirk v. Monroe County Tire, 585 N.E.2d 1366 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (second proceeding in proceedings supplemental requires new facts or evidence)
- Rice v. Comm'r, Ind. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 782 N.E.2d 1000 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (proceedings supplemental are creditor's remedy to obtain relief under judgment)
- Esteb v. Enright by State, 563 N.E.2d 139 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (SSI benefits are exempt from creditor processes)
- Prime Mortgage USA, Inc. v. Nichols, 885 N.E.2d 628 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (citation to Mims regarding exemptions burden)
- Gallant Ins. Co. v. Oswalt, 762 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. Ct. App.2002) (proceedings supplemental purposes and remedies)