Tiera Butler v. Friendly Foot Care, P.C. (mem. dec.)
45A03-1704-SC-1010
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 27, 2017Background
- Friendly Foot Care sued Tiera Butler (a/k/a Aaliayah Ammiyhuwd) in small claims for unpaid medical charges; judgment by default entered after Butler failed to appear at a scheduled hearing.
- Judgment entered for Friendly Foot on February 2, 2017; Butler later sent a letter treated as a Motion to Set Aside and sought a hearing.
- Butler attended some proceedings but repeatedly asserted sovereign-citizen/UCC-type defenses, refused to cooperate with the court to develop evidence, and claimed the court lacked jurisdiction over her.
- The trial court ordered wage garnishment and denied Butler’s Motion to Set Aside after an April 6, 2017 hearing where Butler would not engage on the merits.
- Butler appealed, arguing she was entitled to relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(3) (fraud) and 60(B)(6) (void for lack of jurisdiction).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and applying the invited-error doctrine because Butler’s noncooperation foreclosed an evidentiary hearing on the merits; appellate attorney-fee request denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Friendly Foot) | Defendant's Argument (Butler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Butler’s Motion to Set Aside the default judgment | Trial court acted within discretion; Butler refused to cooperate so no entitlement to relief or evidentiary hearing | Motion sought relief under T.R. 60(B)(3) (fraud) and T.R. 60(B)(6) (void for lack of jurisdiction); she asserted sovereign/UCC defenses | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; invited-error applies because Butler’s conduct prevented development of pertinent evidence |
| Whether Butler was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the 60(B) motion | No—court need not hold an evidentiary hearing when procedural requirements aren’t satisfied and no pertinent evidence was developed | Claimed she should have an evidentiary hearing to prove fraud/jurisdictional defects | Held: no entitlement to an evidentiary hearing given Butler’s refusal to cooperate; invited-error doctrine bars complaint on appeal |
| Whether appellate attorney’s fees should be awarded under App. R. 66(E) | Requested fees as sanction for frivolous/bad-faith appeal | Argued appeal was meritorious | Denied: Court declines to impose fees; standard for sanctions not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Falatovics v. Falatovics, 72 N.E.3d 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review and evidentiary-hearing entitlement on T.R. 60 motions)
- Witte v. Mundy ex rel. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128 (Ind. 2005) (invited-error doctrine prevents a party from taking advantage of errors it caused)
- Evans v. Evans, 766 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (illustration of invited-error principle)
- Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (limitations on awarding appellate attorney’s fees for frivolous appeals)
- Ballaban v. Bloomington Jewish Cmty., Inc., 982 N.E.2d 329 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (discussing when sanctions under appellate rule are appropriate)