Peggy L. Sallee v. James L. Barrett and Martha A. Barrett (mem. dec.)
06A01-1606-PL-1308
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 3, 2017Background
- Peggy Sallee quitclaimed her ownership interest in Boone County real estate to James Barrett in 1977, subject to an agreement that sale proceeds would be split equally.
- The quitclaim deed was recorded in Boone County. In May 2013 James gave Peggy $10,000 by a Receipt described as a partial payment; Peggy also executed and recorded a signed “Release of Equitable Lien” stating the lien and agreement were paid and satisfied in full.
- James and his wife Martha later owned the Boone County property as tenants by the entireties and sold it in September 2014 for $184,000; Peggy alleges she received no proceeds from that sale.
- In 2016 Peggy (a Kentucky resident) sued James and Martha (Putnam County residents) in Boone County asserting conversion, breach of contract, and failure of consideration (seeking restitution/that the release is void).
- Defendants moved to transfer venue to Putnam County under Ind. Trial Rule 75(A)(1) (defendants’ residence); the trial court granted the motion and Peggy appealed interlocutorily, arguing Boone County was preferred under T.R. 75(A)(2) because her claims relate to land in Boone County.
Issues
| Issue | Peggy’s Argument | Barretts’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preferred venue lies in Boone County under T.R. 75(A)(2) because the complaint "relates to" Boone County land | Her claim seeks restitution of an equitable lien and thus "relates to" the Boone County real estate, making Boone preferred venue | The complaint seeks only monetary recovery (debt) from sale proceeds; defendants reside in Putnam County so venue lies there | Court held claims concern only debt (proceeds), not the land itself; T.R. 75(A)(2) does not apply; transfer to Putnam affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Diesel Constr. Co. v. Cotten, 634 N.E.2d 1351 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (articulates the "nexus" test for when a claim "relates to" land under T.R. 75(A)(2))
- R & D Transp., Inc. v. A.H., 859 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 2006) (discusses preferred venue rules and effect of filing a proper motion to transfer)
- Guzzo v. Goodrich Quality Theaters, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 166 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (distinguishes claims seeking in rem relief or conveyance of land from mere debt claims)
- Skeffington v. Bush, 846 N.E.2d 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (holds contract claims based on quality of work performed on land can satisfy T.R. 75(A)(2))
- Trs. of Purdue Univ. v. Hagerman Constr. Corp., 736 N.E.2d 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (claims alleging defective work affecting land create sufficient nexus for venue under T.R. 75(A)(2))