Virginia Garwood and Kristen Garwood v. State of Indiana, 77 N.E.3d 204

Background

Virginia and Kristen Garwood ran an unregistered dog-breeding retail business from their Harrison County dairy farm and did not collect or remit sales tax; DOR estimated a large tax liability.
On June 2, 2009 DOR, with OAG and Indiana State Police, executed jeopardy assessments/warrants, seized ~240 dogs, and sold them the next day to a humane organization for $300.
The Garwoods later pleaded guilty to related state tax offenses in Marion Superior Court; they also challenged the jeopardy assessments in Indiana Tax Court, which in Garwood II held the jeopardy assessments invalid under state law.
The Garwoods sued numerous state and private actors in Harrison Circuit Court under state tort law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983/§ 1985 for actions surrounding the raid; a jury returned a $15,000 verdict against Andrew Swain (OAG counsel).
On appeal the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded (1) Harrison Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the tort/damages claims distinct from the tax-court’s exclusive tax-law jurisdiction, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the § 1983 verdict against Swain, and (3) the Garwoods were not prevailing parties for § 1988 fee recovery, so fees were vacated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state actors deprived Garwoods of procedural due process by seizing/selling dogs without pre-deprivation hearing	Jeopardy assessments were void; therefore no adequate post-deprivation remedy existed and due process was violated	Jeopardy assessment statute and prompt judicial review (tax court) provide adequate process; denial of an administrative hearing did not violate federal due process	Judgment against Swain unsupported; no procedural due process violation as matter of federal law (tax court review sufficed)
Whether defendants’ conduct violated substantive due process ("shocks the conscience")	The raid and sale were arbitrary, retaliatory, and disproportionately punitive—designed to punish puppy mills, not collect taxes	Actions were rationally related to legitimate government interests (tax collection, consumer/animal protection); no evidence of intent to harm or malice by Swain	No substantive due process violation; conduct was rationally related to legitimate ends and not conscience‑shocking; insufficient evidence against Swain
Whether defendants violated equal protection (class-of-one)	DOR targeted dog breeders (breeders of companion animals) without rational basis	DOR treated similar unregistered non-remitting sellers the same; rational basis supports treatment; no comparator or animus shown	Equal protection claim fails: no showing of disparate treatment or invidious intent; similarly situated comparators received same treatment
Whether plaintiffs are "prevailing parties" entitled to § 1988 fees	Limited jury award against Swain makes Garwoods prevailing parties deserving fees	A judgment reversed on appeal or small/isolated award that does not change defendants’ conduct may not make plaintiffs prevailing parties	Garwoods not prevailing parties for § 1988 purposes; trial court’s attorney-fee award vacated

Key Cases Cited

Phillips v. Comm’r, 283 U.S. 589 (Sup. Ct.) (upholding summary jeopardy-style tax procedure where immediate collection is necessary)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (Sup. Ct.) (post-deprivation remedies can satisfy due process when pre-deprivation process is impractical)
Clifft v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 660 N.E.2d 310 (Ind.) (Indiana precedent upholding jeopardy assessment scheme as constitutional)
Sproles v. State, 672 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind.) (tax court has exclusive jurisdiction over original tax appeals and broad channeling of tax disputes)
Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue v. Aisin USA Mfg., Inc., 946 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind.) (explaining tax-court jurisdiction and purpose)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (Sup. Ct.) (substantive due process requires conscience‑shocking official conduct for executive-action claims)
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (Sup. Ct.) (cautioning against turning Fourteenth Amendment into general tort remedy)
Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind.) (distinguishing void vs. voidable judgments and legal effects of voidness)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Sup. Ct.) (federal § 1983 recovery barred when success would imply invalidity of outstanding criminal conviction)