Thomas N. Eckerle v. Katz & Korin, P.C., and Michael W. Hile (mem. dec.)
49A02-1704-CT-735
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- In the 1990s Newland Resources owned Boone County Utilities (BCU); Branham Corp. had a contract entitling it to a success fee tied to BCU asset sales.
- BCU was investigated by the IURC, ordered to stop payments to Newland, and later filed Chapter 11; bankruptcy proceedings confirmed a liquidation plan that paid Newland and left little for creditors.
- Branham sued Newland in state court (Cause 517) and obtained a judgment; later it sued again (Cause 001) and sought to collect via proceedings supplemental; Katz & Korin (and attorney Hile) represented Branham in related proceedings, including BCU’s adversary proceeding in bankruptcy (AP-128).
- Eckerle (attorney for Newland in bankruptcy) was not a party to AP-128 but filed to intervene and later was denied intervention; he remained concerned that Branham and its counsel were attempting to implicate him and other Newland professionals.
- Eckerle sued Katz & Korin and Hile alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and abuse of process based solely on Appellees’ conduct in AP-128; the trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees on the abuse of process claim, and Eckerle appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eckerle can maintain an abuse of process claim based on conduct in AP-128 | Eckerle argued Appellees used the bankruptcy process to harass/inject him into proceedings and to obtain third‑party claims that could be used against him | Appellees argued Eckerle was not a party to AP-128, threats or attempts to involve him do not constitute abuse of process, and statute of limitations/other acts were time‑barred or by others | Court held abuse of process requires the plaintiff be the target of the process; because Eckerle was not a party and there was only a threat or attempt, summary judgment for Appellees was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Mayer v. Lax, Inc., 998 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (defines elements of abuse of process)
- Strutz v. McNagny, 558 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (holds abuse of process requires that process be instituted against the plaintiff)
- Pruitt v. Chow, 742 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir. 1984) (mere threat of suit, without action against plaintiff, insufficient for abuse of process)
- Alva Elec., Inc. v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 7 N.E.3d 263 (Ind. 2014) (summary judgment standard)