Marcos Fernandes a/k/a Marcos Fernandez Individually and d/b/a M&A Auto Wholesale v. Automotive Finance Corporation d/b/a AFC Automotive Finance Corporation d/b/a AFC (mem. dec.)
49A02-1704-CC-700
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- AFC sued M&A on July 21, 2016; M&A did not timely respond.
- AFC obtained default judgment after moving for default on August 24, 2016; judgment entered shortly thereafter.
- M&A learned of the default judgment, appeared by counsel on November 3, 2016, and moved to vacate.
- The trial court held a hearing February 16, 2017, and denied M&A’s motion to vacate, leaving the default judgment intact.
- M&A then moved to file a belated appeal (filed March 27); the trial court denied that motion on April 4, 2017.
- M&A appealed the denial of its motion to file a belated appeal; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AFC) | Defendant's Argument (M&A) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should permit a belated notice of appeal | Timely notice was not filed; absent extraordinary reasons, forfeiture stands | The appeal raises significant issues (service, statute, contract) warranting restoration of forfeited appeal | Denied — no extraordinarily compelling reasons to restore the forfeited right to appeal |
| Whether the default-judgment-related procedural irregularities justify relief | Default judgment procedure was proper; parties are commercially sophisticated | M&A argued confusion over docket entries and other procedural points (not preserved) | Court refused to consider docket-entry claim because M&A did not develop it on appeal |
| Whether the magistrate’s April 4 order was a final appealable order | AFC implicitly relies on the order’s validity | M&A did not object to magistrate authority below | Court noted magistrate may not have authority to enter final appealable order but the parties waived the issue by not objecting |
| Whether this case implicates constitutional or fundamental liberty interests | No—this is a commercial money-judgment dispute | M&A argued the issues were significant enough to warrant merits review | Court held no constitutional or fundamental liberty interest present; therefore extraordinary-compelling standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (forfeited right to appeal may be restored only for extraordinarily compelling reasons, often tied to fundamental liberty interests)
- In re Adoption of I.B., 32 N.E.3d 1164 (Ind. 2015) (discusses magistrates’ authority to enter final appealable orders)
- Cannon v. Caldwell, 74 N.E.3d 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (restored forfeited appeal where child support order was manifestly unjust)
- Robertson v. Robertson, 60 N.E.3d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (reinstated appeal based on parent–child custody fundamental liberty interest)
- Satterfield v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (reinstated appeal where denial of bail implicated fundamental liberty and valued right)
- City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (discusses final appealability of magistrate-entered orders)
- Floyd v. State, 650 N.E.2d 28 (Ind. 1994) (party's failure to object below may waive certain jurisdictional defects)
- Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (appellate courts decline to consider undeveloped arguments lacking citations and record references)