Sharon Thurman and Jeremiah Thurman v. Two Star Inc. (mem. dec.)
96 N.E.3d 665
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Two Star, Inc. owned residential property at 6036 E. 42nd St., Indianapolis, leased to Shelton Hickerson under a nine-year lease; Hickerson was the sole named tenant and died in 2013.
- Sharon Thurman (Hickerson's daughter) was listed as an occupant but not a tenant; after Hickerson's death the landlord discovered unapproved major alterations (e.g., garage converted to bedroom) and use as an adult day-care/group living with multiple unrelated occupants.
- Two Star filed for eviction, prejudgment possession, and damages, asserting lease termination on tenant's death and breaches (unauthorized renovations, unapproved occupants, impermissible use).
- The trial court set and rescheduled a prejudgment-possession hearing (initially Jan 10, continued to Jan 25, later continued to Feb 22); Thurman was served with the orders but did not appear at the Feb 22 hearing and did not file opposing affidavits.
- The trial court heard Two Star's evidence in Thurman’s absence and issued a prejudgment possession order; Thurman appealed, arguing she lacked notice and was denied due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting prejudgment possession because Thurman lacked notice and was denied due process | Two Star: hearing was properly noticed; Thurman failed to keep informed and did not use available procedures to oppose | Thurman: she was not given proper notice of the rescheduled hearing and thus was denied opportunity to be heard (due process violation) | Court affirmed: Thurman had notice obligations under local rule, was served with orders, had opportunity to file affidavits in lieu of appearance, and failed to act; no due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 850 N.E.2d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard).
- City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (parties and counsel must monitor court records and case status).
- Gunashekar v. Grose, 915 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. 2009) (pro se litigants are held to established procedural rules like trained counsel).
- Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 970 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2012) (local rules are binding on courts and litigants and serve orderly, speedy justice).
- Bellwether Props., LLC v. Duke Energy Ind., Inc., 87 N.E.3d 462 (Ind. 2017) (ignorance of law is not an excuse).