Branham v. Varble, 952 N.E.2d 744

Consent judgments entered against Branhams: $4,350.75 + $99 costs in one case; $2,750.50 + $96 costs in the other; proceedings supplemental filed in both cases with common plaintiff and same debtors; debtors were unrepresented at the proceedings; trial court ordered $50/month on each judgment and required job-search efforts; SSI and wage income were the Branhams' only resources; court scheduled a status conference; Court of Appeals affirmed part and reversed part; Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May debtors be ordered to pay from exempt income?	Branham: exemptions must cover all income and garnishment is improper.	Varble/Chastain: exemptions not asserted or applied; trial court should determine exemptions.	Exempt income cannot be garnished; reverse
Is scheduling further proceedings in proceedings supplemental improper?	Branham: continued proceedings without new facts is inappropriate.	Varble/Chastain: small-claims flexibility allows further hearings.	Not improper to schedule a subsequent proceeding under small-claims rules.
Was an order requiring Mr. Branham to apply for jobs appropriate?	Branham: no authority to compel job search.	Varble/Chastain: Rule 69(E) allows answering about non-exempt property but not compelling employment.	Improper to require job applications; reverse as to that directive.

Mims v. Commercial Credit Corp., 261 Ind. 591, 307 N.E.2d 867 (1974) (1974) (exemptions must be asserted; court may modify for unrepresented debtors; foundational to exemptions)
In re Zumbrun, 626 N.E.2d 452 (Ind. 1993) (1993) (liberal construction of exemption statutes)
State ex rel. Wilson v. Monroe Superior Court IV, 444 N.E.2d 1178 (Ind. 1983) (1983) (trial court authority limits regarding employment directives in execution)
Kirk v. Monroe County Tire, 585 N.E.2d 1366 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (1992) (procedural posture of proceedings supplemental when new facts exist)