Bruce R. VandeZande v. Market Ready (mem. dec.)
02A03-1607-CC-1661
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff brought a collections suit in Indiana under the trade name “Market Ready,” a name registered in Ohio to Daniel H. Letzer; underlying debt arose from business VandeZande ran under an administratively-dissolved Indiana corporation.
- Complaint sought $11,017.57; defendant VandeZande admitted the debt but alleged improper refusal of tendered payments and challenged plaintiff’s capacity to sue under the trade name.
- Market Ready moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted judgment for Market Ready on December 14, 2015.
- VandeZande filed a Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside the judgment, arguing Market Ready was not a registered trade name in Indiana and therefore the suit was by a non‑party and judgment void for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- Trial court denied the Rule 60(B) motion; VandeZande appealed. The appellate court considered whether the use of an Ohio-registered trade name deprived the Indiana court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suit by a party using a trade name registered only in Ohio deprived the Indiana court of subject‑matter jurisdiction | Market Ready (Letzer) proceeded as the real party in interest and litigated the claim; capacity not in dispute | VandeZande: Market Ready is not registered in Indiana and thus not a proper plaintiff; judgment void under T.R. 17 and Rule 60 | Court held no jurisdictional defect: Letzer was the real party in interest and Market Ready’s use of an Ohio trade name did not render the action void |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller’s Estate v. St. Joseph County Home, 119 Ind. App. 437, 87 N.E.2d 886 (1949) (holding a nonexistent legal entity cannot sue)
- Parker v. Rod Johnson Farm Serv., Inc., 179 Ind. App. 190, 384 N.E.2d 1129 (1979) (trade name variations do not defeat a corporation’s capacity to sue when identity is clear)
- Waterfield v. Waterfield, 61 N.E.3d 314 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for Trial Rule 60 motions is abuse of discretion)
- Geico Ins. Co. v. Graham, 14 N.E.3d 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate court may reverse for prima facie error when appellee fails to file a brief)