986 N.E.2d 821
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Fry is an Indiana resident who owns Cass County real property.
- The State charged Fry with murder for the September 20, 2011 killing of David Schroder.
- On September 27, 2011, the Schroders filed a civil complaint against Fry for IIED, battery, and wrongful death, and sought to preserve assets via injunction and lis pendens (later stricken).
- Fry moved to stay civil discovery pending resolution of the criminal case; the court stayed Counts I–III discovery temporarily ( March 21, 2012) and later denied the stay (May 1, 2012).
- The trial court held that the Schroders’ interest in expeditious civil resolution outweighed Fry’s Fifth Amendment concerns and allowed no preliminary injunction against his real property; it noted possible revisiting if factors changed.
- Fry appealed the denial of the stay; the appellate court affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying a stay. | Fry contends stay is needed to protect Fifth Amendment rights. | Schroders contend expeditious civil resolution serves interests and asset preservation requires no stay. | No abuse; factors support denial; stay may be reconsidered if circumstances change. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stephen L. Chapman Irrevocable Trust Agreement, 953 N.E.2d 573 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (abuse of discretion standard for discretionary motions in trusts)
- Hilliard v. Jacobs, 927 N.E.2d 393 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (abuse of discretion and balancing factors in stays)
- Baker Mach., Inc. v. Superior Canopy Corp., 883 N.E.2d 818 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (standard for affirming discretionary trial court decisions)
- Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Merchs. Inv. Counseling, Inc., 451 N.E.2d 346 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) (guides review of discretionary rulings)