13 N.E.3d 448
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Catherine Kroczek, a Lake County dentist, sued defendant William Belcher in Lake County alleging defamation per se, invasion of privacy, disclosure of private facts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, identity theft, and tortious interference after Belcher disclosed she had herpes to employers and registered her with public-health organizations.
- Belcher moved to transfer venue to Marion County based on his residence under Ind. Trial Rule 75(A)(1).
- Kroczek opposed transfer, arguing she had established preferred venue in Lake County under T.R. 75(A)(2) because Belcher injured her reputation, privacy, identity, and goodwill, which she characterized as intangible personal chattels.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding Kroczek’s reputation, privacy, identity, and goodwill were intangible chattels and that venue properly lay in Lake County (citing the mobile sequuntur persona rule).
- On appeal, the court examined whether those alleged injuries qualify as "chattels" under T.R. 75(A)(2) and whether Kroczek had therefore established preferred venue in Lake County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reputation, privacy, and identity are "chattels" under T.R. 75(A)(2) | Those intangible interests are intangible personal chattels, so venue lies where they are kept (Lake County). | Reputation, privacy, and identity are not transferable chattels and therefore not covered by T.R. 75(A)(2). | Not chattels; these interests are nontransferable and cannot supply preferred venue under T.R. 75(A)(2). |
| Whether goodwill qualifies as a chattel for venue purposes | Alleged damage to reputation and business reputation implies damage to goodwill, supporting venue in Lake County. | Kroczek did not allege injury to enterprise goodwill; any personal goodwill is nontransferable. | Goodwill could be a chattel if enterprise goodwill; here no enterprise goodwill alleged, and personal goodwill is nontransferable — cannot establish venue. |
| Whether T.R. 75(A)(2) applies to in-person injuries like these | Plaintiff contends intangible personal property claims fall within T.R. 75(A)(2). | Defendant argues T.R. 75(A)(2) pertains to in rem actions and things, not personal injuries. | T.R. 75(A)(2) contemplates in rem actions and transferable things; Kroczek’s claims are injuries to a person, not to a chattel. |
| Whether venue should be transferred to defendant’s residence county | N/A (plaintiff sought to retain Lake County) | Transfer sought to Marion County under T.R. 75(A)(1) (defendant’s residence). | Court reversed trial court and ordered transfer: preferred venue did not lie in Lake County, so transfer to Marion County is proper under T.R. 75(A)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Scalf, 778 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing certain intangible rights, like right of publicity, as personal chattels)
- Bostic v. House of James, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding a money judgment can be an intangible chattel because it is transferable)
- R & D Transp., Inc. v. A.H., 859 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 2006) (defining chattel as movable or transferable personal property)
- Jay Myoung Yoon v. Sunsook Yoon, 711 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 1999) (distinguishing enterprise goodwill, which is generally transferable, from personal goodwill tied to an individual)
- Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harter, 671 N.E.2d 861 (Ind. 1996) (venue rules: an action filed in a preferred venue cannot be transferred)
- Salsbery Pork Producers, Inc. v. Booth, 967 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (discussing policy favoring defendant’s right to trial in county of residence)