4 N.E.3d 760
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- NIPSCO filed a small-claims judgment against Sloan in 2009 for property damage; judgment trebled and costs awarded.
- Sloan’s driving privileges were suspended on Dec 23, 2012 for failing to satisfy the judgment; he sought installments and a hearing.
- A May 14, 2013 hearing led to a June 10, 2013 order reinstating Sloan’s privileges with conditions to pay installments and provide proof of financial responsibility.
- Similarly, Cole’s 2007 agreed judgment led to a 2009 suspension; he requested a hearing and was reinstated on June 10, 2013 with similar conditions.
- The trial court ordered both Appellees to maintain financial responsibility for three years and to pay $50 per month until the judgments are paid or further order; NIPSCO appealed and cases were consolidated.
- The court ultimately affirmed the reinstatements, rejecting NIPSCO’s statutory, equity, and procedure challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory interpretation of 9-25-6-6(a)(2) | Sloan argues the statute allows installments, not a time-limited payoff. | NIPSCO contends installments must finish within the seven-year suspension. | Statute unambiguous; trial court may set installments without a fixed pay-off deadline. |
| Equity of reinstatement | Sloan/ Cole argue reinstatement furthers payment and justice. | NIPSCO asserts denying reinstatement promotes complete compensation. | Court upheld equity in favor of reinstatement consistent with law. |
| BMV procedures and record consideration | Sloan asserts the trial court reasonably consulted BMV procedures. | NIPSCO objects to trial court relying on outside records. | Waived for lack of objection; trial court’s contact with BMV did not improperly prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mertz v. Mertz, 971 N.E.2d 189 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory interpretation; plenary meaning governs when unambiguous)
- McGee v. McGee, 998 N.E.2d 270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (recognizes reading statutes for what they do not say; avoid adding requirements)
- Porter v. Bankers Trust Co. of California, N.A., 773 N.E.2d 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (equitable relief; balance between justice and statutory framework)