Nicole L. Brown v. Tammy S. Brown (mem. dec.)
77A01-1703-PL-676
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.Nov 30, 2017Background
- Tammy and Terry Brown lived together after a divorce and built a house (the "Real Estate") on land titled by a 2008 warranty deed to both, though they were not married then. The property was appraised at $140,000.
- In Sept. 2010 Tammy alleges Terry injured her during an altercation that ruptured a left breast implant; she later had implants repaired for $5,000.
- On Oct. 12, 2010 Terry recorded a quitclaim deed transferring the Real Estate into his name alone; Tammy testified her signature was forged. Terry later admitted falsifying the notarization and pleaded guilty to criminal deception.
- Tammy sued Terry (for forgery/fraud and personal injury) in 2010; a 2012 jury found for Tammy but the judgment was reversed on appeal due to prejudicial evidence. In Dec. 2012 Terry quitclaimed the property to Nicole Myers (Tammy’s former daughter-in-law); Terry and Nicole later married.
- Tammy refiled in 2016 adding Count III alleging the transfer to Nicole was fraudulent and asking the transfer be set aside. At the 2017 retrial the court declined to give a jury instruction to let the jury set aside the transfer (treating that relief as post-verdict); the jury returned a general verdict awarding Tammy $75,000 against Terry and Nicole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to award monetary damages against Nicole | Tammy: evidence of property value ($140,000) and implant repair cost ($5,000) supports damages against both defendants because Nicole holds fraudulently transferred property | Nicole: Tammy presented no evidence tying Nicole to monetary liability; no basis to award damages against Nicole | Court: Affirmed — general verdict sustained; evidence supported award against both defendants given verdict form and record evidence |
| Whether jury could, or should have, been instructed to set aside transfer to Nicole | Tammy: requested instruction allowing jury to disregard transfer if it was fraudulent and made to hinder plaintiff | Nicole: opposed submitting disputed instruction; counsel agreed to treat setting aside transfer as post-verdict remedy and accepted verdict form | Court: Instruction withdrawn by agreement; court treated rescission of transfer as a post-verdict issue and affirmed general verdict as consistent with evidence |
| Effect of general verdict when multiple theories/defendants may be inconsistent | Tammy: a general verdict is presumed to include all facts essential to recovery | Nicole: (implicit) inconsistent liability cannot stand without specific findings | Court: Applies rule that general verdict will be sustained if any theory consistent with evidence supports it and no objection was made to verdict form; judgment stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Tipmont Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Fischer, 697 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (general-verdict standard: sustain verdict on any theory consistent with evidence)
- Tipmont Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Fischer, 716 N.E.2d 357 (Ind. 1999) (affirming general principles regarding appellate review)
- Warren Const. Co. v. Powell, 89 N.E. 857 (1909) (presumption that facts essential to recovery are found in favor of plaintiff where jury returns a general verdict)
- Murphy Auto Sales, Inc. v. Coomer, 112 N.E.2d 589 (Ind. App. 1953) (general verdict sustained where no objection was made to verdict forms given to jury)
- Brown v. Brown, 979 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (prior appeal reversing Tammy’s initial judgment due to prejudicial evidence)