Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. Martin

hаve his convictions overturned. Before INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC commenced, ASSOCIATION, INC., Gardner, judge the trial the trial dis Bob In capacity attorney was the closed that husband his as Commissioner representing High Bonilla’s father and uncle Indiana School Athletic Associa- tion, Inc., Mary Keefer, another matter. Our search of the record in her objection capacity Principal Bishop that Booker reveals made judge presiding School, the trial over trial Appellants-Defendants, repre after he learned her husband’s sentation óf Bonilla’s father and uncle. Appellee-Plaintiff.

fact, disclosure, MARTIN, Jessah judge after this the trial everybody asked the with parties, okay “Is No. 02A03-0001-CV-029. that?” Booker’s counsel “I replied, trial am, at 224. “Timeli Judge....” Record Court of Appeals Indiana. Ty ness is on issues.” important recusal Dec. Ind., son v. State N.E.2d wait, ... “Counsel lie in only recusal raising the issue after learn

ing ruling the court’s on the merits.” Id.

(quoting Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co. Therefore, Cir., 1464, 1472).

11th 799 F.2d

any concerning issue trial judge’s deci

sion not recuse has herself been waived.

Conclusion summary, jury with instructions

respect attempted murder con- did not error,

stitute fundamental there was suffi-

cient evidence of intent kill the Booker’s

victim, issue concerning the

judge’s failure to recuse herself has been

waived purposes appeal. judgment is affirmed.

BAILEY, J., VAIDIK, J., concur. III, Johnson, Smith, I M. Baker

Robert LLP, Heath, Indianapolis, Pence & History Facts and Procedural Indiana, Attorney Appellants. appeal represents appeal third This Jr., R. L. Stefanie Murphy, Edward issuance of a arising out of the Crawford, Boxberger IHSAA, Miller & injunction against Carson its Commis- Indiana, LLP, Gardner, At- Wayne, Murphy, Bishop Fort Bob sioner torneys in favor Martin.1 Appellee. High School facts, set forth Indiana Martin, supra,

OPINION Ass’n v. School Athletic reveal that Jessah SULLIVAN, Judge Bell- parents lived with her and attended (Bellmont) during her High mont School High Athletic Appellant, Indiana School freshman, junior years. and sophomore (IHSAA), Association, the tri- appeals Inc. time, relationship During this Martin’s finding in contempt judgment al court’s parents seriously with her deteriorat- assessment imposing of court and an escape dysfunctional ed. In order to her find- against it as a result of environment, eigh- home once she turned ing. teen, year, her prior starting and senior We affirm. her and parents’ Martin moved from home Bishop High transferred to Luers School Upon appeal, the IHSAA asserts several (Luers) planned participate where she judgment challenges to the court’s varsity girls’ on the basketball team. Both follows: which we restate as were High Luers and Bellmont Schools (1) the trial court erred when Whether IHSAA located members of the and were in contempt; the IHSAA it found Ac- public within the same school district. and Commissioner cordingly, IHSAA Associate imposed Ray imposed Craft Transfer Rule 19-6.22 the trial Whether junior only a granted assessment as result and Martin inappropriate appealed at Luers.3 Martin finding contempt. eligibility of of changes who schools without a corre- and its Commissioner Bob dent The IHSAA prelim- propriety appealed change of sponding Gardner inary CV-460, of residence the student’s Appeal injunction 02A03-9912- No. parent(s)/guardian(s). upheld this court the trial wherein preliminary injunc- granting the court order 3.We note while the manual of the cover Ass’n, High Inc. tion. Indiana School Athletic By-laws Incorpo- 1999-2000 and Articles of reh'g Ind.App., v. Martin copied was and included ration the IHSAA appeal Transfer of that Indiana denied. record, manual, of the and in the the contents currently Supreme pending. Court is rules, consequently the IHSAA were not. Keefer, Mary principal appeal, second Appellee quote Appellant Both and Sсhool, High appealed Bishop Luers also the' By-laws to its from and cite to the IHSAA and preliminary Appeal No. 02A05- support arguments. rules to their Pursuant appeal subsequently 9912-CV-574. This 201, may judi- Ind. Evidence Rule we take Appeal appeal, No. dismissed. In the fourth subject notice fact "not cial of a that is 02A05-0005-CV-178, appealed dispute.” further reasonable Evid. R. 201 attorney the trial court’s award of fees to notice, "may judicial provides we take contempt. Martin as a result of the IHSAA’s stage requested or at whether not ... today, separate opinion In a issued we con- Here, proceeding.” parties clude that the trial court did not abuse its presented differing with of the us versions attorney awarding as discretion in Martin fees addition, party argues rules. neither contempt. a of the Indiana result IHSAA’s apply IHSAA do in this case. rules Martin, High School Ass'n v. Inc. Athletic We find that the contents of the 1999-2000 (2000) Ind.App., 741 N.E.2d 775. Incorporation By-laws Articles of and dispute judicial are and provides not in lake 2. Rule 19-6.2 the IHSAA with au- thority eligibility notice thereof. to deсlare limited a stu- School; officers, hearing agents, was held before and their repre- decision and sentatives, Septem- on employees, attorneys, IHSAA’s Executive Committee and persons ber The Executive Committee par- 1999.4 and all in active or concert them, upheld the Associate Commissioner’s deci- ticipation they with be and are only jun- sion and Martin limited granted hereby temporarily ENJOINED AND period varsity eligibility ior from attempting RESTRAINED en- days following the her last inter- force, date of implement carry in any out participation scholastic at Bellmont. manner, directly indirectly, the deci- sion of the Commissioner of the Indiana 4, 1999, On November filed Association, High School Athletic Inc. complaint seeking declaratory verified ruling and the Commit- Executive and judgment, permanent upholding tee of deci- said injunctions. complaint requested sion, which and ruling decision are to IHSAA, Bob Gardner his capacity Martin, the effect that plaintiff, Jessah (Gardner), Commissioner in- Mary capacity Keefer in her as Princi- terscholastic athlеtics and on behalf of (Keefer), pal of preliminarily Luers Bishop period School for a enjoined permanently enforcing the year commencing one with enroll- decision of the IHSAA which held Martin at Bishop High ment Luers School. to be in ineligible participate level athletics. ORDERED, IT IS FURTHER AD- JUDGED, AND DECREED AND DE- 1999, On November the trial court that upon CLARED the evidence sub- hearing request held a on Martin’s for hearing at mitted the of the Executive relief, injunctive and on November 9, 1999, Committee on Jes- September 1999, granted request pre- Martin’s for a sah Martin is under eligible the rules of liminary injunction. in- preliminary immediately the IHSAA to in participate junction read as follows: varsity interscholastic athletics at Bish- ORDERED, IT IS FURTHER AD- op High at 262- Luers School. Record JUDGED, AND the DECREED that Defendants, High the Indiana School Inc.; Gardner, Association, gained ability Athletic Bob Martin had the Because capacity varsity-level pursu- his as Commissioner of the participate athletics High order, Indiana Athletic Associa- ant to a court was au- School tion, Inc.; Keefer, and ca- Mary by By-Laws its Resti- aрply thorized pacity Principal Bishop as Rule5 if preliminary tution to Luers finally 4. The IHSAAExecutive Committee or it consists versed is determined injunctive or twelve courts relief is not senior members of IHSAA Board justified, any or one more of the follow- of Directors. Members of the Board of Di- action(s) against ing such in the in- school personnel rectors are school who are elected compet- of restitution and fairness terest represent the member schools from each ing schools shall taken: be of the five IHSAAdistricts. Require a. or team records and individual partic- performances during achieved Rule, By- 5. The Restitution 17-6 ipation by be such student IHSAA, laws of the addresses issue stricken; vacated or participation pursuant student athlete Require b. team victories be forfeited to court and reads action as follows: opponents; ineligible according "If a is student to Asso- Require c. team individual awards permitted but ciation Rules Association; earned be to the returned competition contrary in interschool tо Asso- and/or ciation but in Rules accordance with d. If the school received or would has restraining injunc- court terms of a order or receive funds from Association against tion school student’s ineligi- and/or tournament series which the require injunction participated, Association and the is subse- ble individual has vacated, quently voluntarily stayed, re- the school its share of net re- forfeit stated, “At we point Wynns Mar- tion Rule. injunction were later overturned all the information ineligible for would have to consider ultimately found to be tin Luers, fearing compelling if there were varsity-level athletics. and determine Rule, de- Restitution rule.” Record ramifications of the evidence to waive that al- should not be fa- Wynns, that Martin are According termined schools rules, Because Martin was participate. lowed to should miliar with the IHSAA’s after sports Rule, competing in still not based aware of the Restitution issued, injunction was she preliminary decisions them- on this awareness “make re- contempt for petition filed verified Wynns respond- at 343. selves.” Record find the the trial questing that concerning “chilling to a question ed contempt for Bob IHSAA and Gardner Rule on schools effect” of the Restitution in- comply with failure to they was “sure that by stating that she being Martin was denied the junction Rule], Restitution but [the have considered granted her. trial court had relief the ... it effect say chilling I cannot has I of effect on hearing, give degree con- cannot At Wynns Record at 344. particular was in school.” tended that that a school with its Restitution further testified failing to waive winning championship a State consequences potential that the adverse claiming Mar- Rule and Luers to decide that consider the Rule caused would participate, might not be allowed to receive agreed tin should that a student never as would which the same effect of an if a school produced the benefit of its limited athlete to IHSAA’s enforcement chose to allow the student under the Transfer eligibility decision the Restitution participate because of contended that was Rule. The IHSAA Concerning the detrimental effect Rule. to waive its Resti- specifically Rule, not ordered Wynns testi- the Restitution further Rule, did follow the tution that Martin not fied: to re- procedures ‍‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​‍proper administrative Res- Q your it position .... is of Restitution that quest waiver any Rule not det- titution does have of the Restitution Rule

mere existence Bishop Luers’ de- rimental effect on could not constitute because Martin, play is that cision to Jessah Rule determined to Restitution had been correct? rule, valid, that even be a enforceable and my judgment A. It the Restitu- is though might have an the Restitution there, is tion Rule out whether causing of the school to indirect effect considering that Bishop Luers is not participate, decide to allow Martin it decision, I in their cannot answer whether or not was the school’s decision that. participated. she it, Q. you would ad- they If considered hearing, IHSAA Assistant During the play- mit it would a detriment to Wynns testified in Theresia Commissioner ing her? response question whether the it, it be. they might Restitu- A. If considered to waive the willing IHSAA was during during competition, an tour- and the season ceipls from such if Thus, distributed, have receipts if were found to been nament. Martin said have not Principal ineligible, participated while Luers’ withholding of such re- authorize the required disqualify Mar- by would been ceipts Record at have the Association.” games tin forfeit all and individual 283. and, contests; 17-6, during season conjunction Rule 3-9 re- awards obtained with Rule contests, required to dis- quires principal been to take tournament the member school’s Martin, qualify advance. but let team actions once is certain it determined However, runners-up championship or participated. state student The actions all tour- sport played titles as well as team individual depending upon differ place be vacated. question took nament awards would whether the contests in Q. you possi- disappointed tell me how could soon when Can she realized that anything might other than a severe

bly be she ever have the opportunity to Record play. detriment? at 375. Miller further testi- Q .... can ^[*] you Rule would tell me ^[*] any ^[*] effect have on school fied that Luers’ games in which Martin participated. could not principal risk having decided to forfeit the The trial court took issue play Luers’ Bishop decision Jes- contempt under advisement and on Martin, Janu sah other than it det- being ary Judgment issued its Order or rimental? (Contempt the Court Judgment) I you any A. cannot tell other effect court, which the sponte, sua made the that it would Record at have. 352. following specific findings: According Wynns, the value of as- Wynns in virtually testified every sets held at the time case, the IHSAA appeals prelimi- $7,363,357.77, hearing was and the IHSAA injunctions. nary $279,611.86. currently had cash assets Wynns stated that knew also she cases where IHSAA had failed use Wynns 11. Theresa in every testified Restitution Rule when case Injunction where a court’s Or- upon appeal. was overturned reversed, der has been has enforced the Restitution Andrews, Rule.

Gary the girls’ basketball Luers, coach at during also testified Bishop School Andrews, hearing. According to defending Champion 2A State not been allowed to dress for girls’ varsity basketball. games basketball even Wynns 13. Theresa Bishop testified preliminary injunction after the is- Luers would consider Restitu- sued. Andrews testified that Martin had tion Rule in their decision whether the ability on the play Martin. Jessah girls’ basketball team at Luers. When was not ing were it not for the threat of the Resti- in with responded, “They counselor ketball coach who tution asked to forfeit the still that Restitution Rule.” Record at 367. at the ents’ Restitution Rule.” “eleven and 0” cording to drews stated that Harry home, testified why Rule; hearing his playing Miller, in Ohio Andrews, Martin wasn’t playing, Andrews family games. that because she they was because “there [was] allowed after the “main reason” she [IHSAA] after she left her Record Martin would since former could that Record suffering Martin Martin move not the team assistant at still was at risk 363. An- 363. seeing an anxi- was not to having play- par- bas- was Ac- 18. Jessah Martin has not been 15. Theresa Wynns testified the cur- was two hundred million, thousand, ted games. sets, thousand, six hundred eleven dol- lars rent 611.86). dollars and ($7,363,357.77)and that of those as- November to assets and the amount play ^[*] three three hundred eighty or dress for held by seventy ^[*] hundred six cents available 1999, the IHSAA as n seventy seven cents sixty any was seven fifty permit- varsity ($279,- seven three cash nine ety attack at to According Gary while school. 19. testified Jessah Andrews Miller, improved play Martin’s the ability “outlook” and has to she was “a little more old self’ the varsity Bishop girls’ after Luers bas- issued, was but that she was ketball team. not Bishop 28. As a of Jessah Martin January result As of

20. varsity play, colleges basketball team girls’ being permitted Luers to wins and losses. had eleven to opportunity have not had the to competition or observe Jessah that Bishop Luers determined 21. collegiate ability. assess her take the risk forfeiture could not games by playing its Jessah an inabili- 29. Martin will suffer Jessah light Martin in as ty scholarships to a result obtain Rule. actions. IHSAA’s if Gary testified it were 22. Andrews 30. has suffered both Jessah Martin not for the Restitution Jessah and financial harm. Rec emotional play to permitted Martin would be ord 298-99.6 girls’ basketball. judgment, the trial court deter- Bishop Gary testified 24. Andrews mined IHSAA was School is “worried” preliminary injunction, and found that any games have they may to forfeit preliminary injunction specific, participаt- in which Jessah Martin knowledge that the IHSAA had actual ed. injunction, pur- IHSAA had testified, Gary Andrews “There is 25. knowingly pre- and posefully violated I always the Restitution Rule. do injunction, and liminary violation play to Jessah. right place during took the time the I am the Restitution worried about injunction was in effect. The trial court Rule.” the IHSAA “willful- specifically found that As a result of Martin not 26. Jessah disregarded ly contemptuously [the play,

being permitted to she has by forcing court’s] [Luers] [o]rder and anxious. upset been comply original with the IHSAA’s decision partici- that Jessah Martin is Gary Andrews testified Jessah athletics,” pate interscholastic ability colle- play Martin has that the IHSAA had failed giate and to receive ath- found basketball scholarships. letic show that violation was not willful. general judgment governs ‍‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​‍the extent the trial standard of review We would observe merely particular recited that a witness upon has not issue which the court another, thing recita- found). testified one such The recitations of evidence or testi finding tion does not constitute a of fact. Sеe mony in this case therefore are true find Ind., Corp. v. United States Steel Perez ings respect do not With such control. 426 N.E.2d 29. presume judgment issues we is based Here, party requested special find- neither upon findings supported by evidence. See 52(A)(1) ings. Although requires Trial Rule Ventures, (1998) Ind. Red Arrow Ltd. v. Miller granting preliminary trial in 939, App., 692 N.E.2d overruled other on injunction, special findings make must fact grounds by Ind.App., Scott v. Randle parties request- whether or not one of the ed, has 60, nothing This 697 N.E.2d trans. denied. is important is note the matter application general judg than of the more determination, appeal under was a ment standard of review. underlying injunction. on the not the decision stated, Having so we observe that would Therefore, gratuitous “findings” those by the statements in the nature made here court, merely by the made which recite testi- court, controlling, per- while “lend mony, ques- do control resolution of the Perez, spective supra, task.” 426 our tion as whether conclusions reached N.E.2d at 33. statements are an indica- Such judgment accordingly, and the entered are proba- tion that the trial court afforded some by supported See the evidence. National Oil testimony tive forth and Gas, value set Gingrich Ind.App., & Inc. v. enlightenment assessing the (when some in serve as findings N.E.2d 491 trial court enters motion, light judgment in of the specific findings of the trial court on its fact own only they as to issues while the evidence adduced at trial. control cover 301. The trial positive Record at court further organized sport outcomes of determined that the IHSAA en- competition’ because have been documented. every Rule in action Among forces Restitution these outcomes are enhanced de- reversed, skills, where an is a school cision-making self-image, charac- might comply injunc- ter, not to with morality, decide independence, oppor- tion for fear of youth Rule’s ef- experience tunities for a sense preliminary injunction fect if the is later of achievement.... Athletics can also overturned. Specifically, the trial court be an avenue for economically underpri- “[b]y dеtermined that virtue of vileged students to college attend on a ‘threat’, IHSAA’s the school is forced to when scholarship they might not other- comply violate the Court’s Order and with wise to do The availability afford so. the original IHSAA decision. This mecha- scholarships such significant. Schools knowingly nism been willfully has uti- in participating I Division of the NCAA in by lized IHSAA the matter spent before an average of almost one-and-a- this court.” Record at 300. half per million dollars school in athletic scholarships year the academic 1993- addition, the trial court also conclud- (citations omitted). 94.” Id. at 243-44 ed that Martin had suffered both emotion- note, al We majority and financial harm and further as did the assessed the opinion in Carlberg, per day long membership for so as it in $500.00 the IHSAA does voluntary remained not reflect a injunction. did, however, choice for The trial court student athletes the public system school purge allow the IHSAA to of con- that these have itself athletes “no voice in tempt by specifically its rules or Carl waiving leadership.” enforcement berg, supra, of the Restitution Rule 694 N.E.2d at 230. four as it would be years applied appeal spend high to Martin. This these student athletes ensued. “relatively school is ... short compared At request, argument Martin’s oral required the amount of time often for insti held on August before this court policies tutional to change.” Id. Student During argument oral it was revealed that athletes, by high virtue of their school’s to play allowed Martin after her IHSAA, membership are required one-year period junior of limited to conform to eligibility and partic expired, eligibility but ipation requirements ultimately estab never waived its Restitution Rule. lished the IHSAA and set forth in its Thus, n By-laws. Rules and while students education, have a to an right constitutional Athletics in Education which integral they athletics is an part, right in the rule- note, initially, We our Indiana Su making process which governs partic their preme recognized has Court athletics as if ipation high high school athletics their “an integral part this constitutionally- school is a member of the IHSAA. process mandated of education.” Indiana Ass’n, High School Athletiс Inc. v. Carl Here, presented with challenge, we are (1997) Ind., berg action, not to inac- but Dickson, separate opinion, Justice in his appears tion. if unique what to be identified the clear benefits athletics can situation, have, not novel school officials that, provide he when observed contrary preliminary to a trial court’s in- “Physical rates, mortality junction, fitness lowers ultimately decided to disallow a promotes cardiovascular and muscular right student athlete the in participate a fitness, generates general feeling a of sport for which she is otherwise athletical- well-being, and reduces the symptoms ly qualified, the because these officials fear depression anxiety. and ‘potentially The threat the IHSAA’s Restitution Rule.

766 Supreme Court has found that Indiana participate a student rules allow court order or Restitution Rule be valid and there- virtue of a in athletics However, may a not as result its failure to waive the Rule injunction. fore threat, further, very real contempt; Rule’s and Restitution be basis for was dеnied relief willfully athlete did violate student that the IHSAA not injunction. In preliminary granted by the preliminary injunction.

effect, Rule has IHSAA’s Restitution result for this student produced the same A. enforcing its if the IHSAA were athlete as and Certain Order Clear Transfer decision under eligibility playing is not bas- Rule—Martin contempt the willful Indirect is ketball. lawfully entered court any disobedience had of which the offender notice. order Ill (1999) Ind.App., 707 Meyer v. Wolvos Contempt denied, 1031, 1029, reh’g trans. N.E.2d be “clear and The order must denied. has The court discretion trial question is no certain” such that there a in party or not is determine whether may may a not do and (1999) party what Crowley v. Ind. contempt. Crowley be question regarding when order is 42, 51. We will reverse N.E.2d App., 708 “ (2000) v. Gordon ing violated. Gordon if finding ‘only it is the trial court’s 468, A Ind.App., party 733 N.E.2d 472. of the facts and logic and effect against the may contempt failing in not be held any before the court circumstances ” ambiguous or indefinite comply with arising therefrom.’ inferences reasonable (1998) (1997) Ind.App., Rendon v. Rendon Berryhill Ind. order. (quoting Crowl Id. 889, 830). 828, The N.E.2d trial App., 678 N.E.2d will be affirmed judgmеnt court’s may that it not be IHSAA contends record, unless, reviewing the entire after in because trial court held a a firm and definite belief “‘we have specifically did mention or not by the trial has been made mistake Rule. In require waiver of the Restitution ” (2000) v. Creamer court.’ Williamson contention, support of this (quoting Ind.App., 722 N.E.2d Club, Lake The Woods cites Martinal v. O’ Glendenning Ind. Marriage re 252, 225 N.E.2d 183. Inc. 248 Ind. 1179). Here, the App., Martinal, a the trial court entered court, specific sponte, sua entered trial read, judgment pertinent part, which of law. As findings of fact and conclusions injunc- granted permanent “Plaintiff [is] earlier, judgment standard general noted paragraph for in one prayed tion upon which the court applies any issue complaint.” Upon Id. plaintiffs findings appropriate has entered appeal, the Martinal court determined any legal fact. affirm theo upon We judgment vague “too evidence. ry supported by sufficiently and “not definite uncertain” at 495. Gingrich, supra, 716 N.E.2d it upon certain to whom party bind is that The IHSAA’s main contention Id. is served.” сon- improperly found Here, spe trial court ordered tempt injunction. Spe- cifically IHSAA and Bob Gardner cifically, argues pre- “enjoined liminary injunction not order and restrained temporarily did be enforce, implement attempting to waive the manner, directly or indi carry not have out the IHSAA could waived effect, which, rectly” held the decision Restitution Rule because remedies, Martin to exhausted administrative at at Luers. Record 263. varsity again granted only athletics rules was addition, specifically junior In court limited varsity the trial or- eligibility, this time by immediately eligi- dered that Martin was the IHSAA’s Executive Committee. ble, IHSAA,” Thereafter, the rules of the Martin sought by filing “under relief varsity complaint athletics at Luers. verified for declaratory relief and for present Record at 263. We find the facts and permanent injunc to be unlike tions with the County this case those Martirial. Allen Superior Martirial, gave In court trial granted the trial order no Court. The Martin’s request prohibited. injunction, indication the conduct To for a preliminary find ing comply injunction, with the Martiriаl that the IHSAA had acted an “arbi trary fact and capricious” to even ascertain some notion what manner. Record ‍‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​‍at with, Thus, parties dealt had Martin had exhausted ad her Here, to look to other documents. the ministrative remedies her concerning court order forbade direct or indirect ac- transfer status and level eligibility prevented prior tion which would have Martin to requesting relief from trial from playing varsity athletics for Luers court. during period which Second, the exhaustion doctrine previously had ineligi- determined she was applies only after there has been an ad present ble. order in The case was ministrative decision from which indi an clear: neither the nor its Commis- vidual bring ap could an administrative sioner, Gardner, “carry Bob was to out in peal. Area Plan Comm’n v. Evansville manner, directly indirectly” the de- Major Ind.App., 720 N.E.2d cision keeping which had the effect of Mar- 396-97, reh’g (holding denied there

tin playing from athletics at Luers. had been an administrative decision where Record at 263. This order ambig- was not plan the аrea commission issued a letter uous; neither was it indefinite in its com- informing improvement location Rather, mand. sufficiently was certain denied); had been permit Thom T.W. allow the IHSAA ascertain what it City Constr. Ind. of Jeffersonville could sup- or could not do. The evidence App., 721 (finding N.E.2d ports court’s determination that there was no administrative decision when preliminary injunction sufficiently building ap commissioner referred an specific. plication to another agency, ap without proving disapproving application). B. appeal The af procedures apply IHSAA’s Exhaustion Administrative Remedies ter IHSAA makes a decision.7 In this case, The IHSAA next contends that it yet the IHSAA had made could the Restitution implement waived Rule decision to Rule the Restitution yet because Martin had not exhausted her yet played. because had not respect only administrative remedies with decisions the con made that Rule. This contention cerning is erroneous Martin dealt with status as First, for several reasons. this case arises transfer eligibility student the levеl of the initial decision provisions IHSAA Associ she had obtained under the ate Ray Commissioner Craft that Martin the Transfer Rule. The IHSAA’s conten granted only junior varsity eligi sought limited tion that Martin could not have bility for ap judicial athletics Luers. Martin alleged review an administrative pealed pursuant ruling this decision to the until she had exhausted her avail general, investiga- “any Rule party may 17 deals with appeal affected decision tions, decisions, hearings, appeals, penalties designee.” (emphasis Commissioner or his 17-4.1, hardship. particular, added). Committee,” "Right Review states

768 injunction party of the in whose favor the remedies is without able administrative was, case, granted. is in this admin merit as there concerning the or decision ruling istrative Here, court’s order was from which Martin could Rule Restitution Martin, provide for the benefit made the IHSAA rules do While appealed. have her with relief from IHSAA’s decision of a decision appeal for provide for level that she was designee Commissioner or his IHSAA’s carry To fulfill the purpose athletics. mаde, the IHSAA has been once decision preliminary injunc out the intent of the rule which would specific to no points us tion, the trial court restrained both the a request initiate required directly and Luers from or indi IHSAA through Restitution Rule waiver for enforce, or rectly attempting implement procedure. an administrative manner IHSAA’s carry out precluded partic which Martin’s decision C. ipation athletics at Luers. terms, failing to waive practical While Validity the Restitution Rule Rule the Restitution meant “indirectly” attempting was to en IHSAA IHSAA a sub The dedicates decision, did not force its the trial court refuting what portion of brief stantial in declare that Restitution “challengfe] be a [to] it considers to fact, specifically the trial court valid. Appel rule.” validity the restitution hearing during contempt stated appears at The IHSAA lant’s Brief Rule is not unconstitution contempt “the Restitution held in argue that cannot be .... and well in al is still alive [it] the Restitution failing for waive of Indiana” and “[t]hat [the State restitu has deter Supreme our Court because is contempt rule] tion is not what this Rule is not mined that the Restitution about, contempt whether or about. This is does not im manifestly unreasonable and you using are that Resti [the IHSAA] judicial function of the pinge upon the girl prevent tution Rule to However, [Martin] to hold that a failure to courts. playing basketball.” Record merely because to contemptuous act is not Thus, argument the IHSAA’s inapplicable a act would render valid bearing Rule is valid has no injunction Restitution rule rob an would upon our or not Injunc determination of whether meaning. of its restraining order was in of the trial equitable tions remedies. Northern are injunction. court’s v. Dozier Indiana Public Service Co. 977, (1996) (pre Ind.App., 674 N.E.2d 989 D. injunctions equita are within the liminary court); discretion of the trial McGloth ble Violation Willful Serv., Heritage L.L.C. en v. Envtl. next contends that it did 1069, (grant 705 N.E.2d 1073 Ind.App., not intend its Rule to serve as Restitution injunction a preliminary denial of rests participation. Spe- a deterrent to. student equitable trial court's discre within the evi- cifically, argues tion). such, preliminary in prohibitory As produced dence at trial failed to show that junсtions are which restrain court orders intentionally using the IHSAA was rights acts interfere with the eligibility Rule to enforce its injunction party in whose favor decisions. City granted. Elder of Jeffersonville court hold Ind.App. Before the trial Thus, violating a reh’g may, party denied. sake, order, party willfully it must find that the equity’s make invalid an otherwise Williamson, action, protect rights disobeyed the court order. valid in order to party in supra, City 722 N.E.2d at 865. The South Bend Ind.App., proving that contempt bears the burden N.E.2d 1324 (quoting Denny v. State willfully 682, 704, he or she did not violate the 203 Ind. 182 N.E. 320). Meyer, supra, court’s- Hancz, order. a landlord enjoined was Thus, at IHSAA had burden the “causing or allowing” his property to proving willfully that it not violate did occupied be violation of a vacate and the court’s order. Hancz, supra seal order. at 1323. The gave landlord his tenant notice to vacate contempt hearing, At Assis- IHSAA however, the property; the tenant contin tant Wynns Commissioner Theresia testi- ued to occupy house. The landlord knowledge, fied that to her other schools manager told his apartment to “continue plаyed they have their athletes after are prodding “just kind of on lady,” and enjoined from enforcing eligibility deci- move, assumed that she would she’d pursuant to the sions made Transfer Rule. leave.” at Id. 1324. The Hancz court Thus, that, argued the IHSAA because contempt, noting found the landlord in that this was the first time which school accomplish objec the landlord did not to play pursu- elected not a student athlete tive of the court order and that the land injunction, ant to a court could IHSAA lord’s “feeble efforts to remove the tenant possibly intended for its Restitu- reasonably diligent did not amount to a tion to serve to stu- Rule deterrent energetic attempt accomplish and to what dent participation. athlete The IHSAA was ordered.” Id. argued also that preliminary because the injunction specifically did not order the case, this in IHSAA to waive its Restitution junction precluded direct or indirect willfully injunc- IHSAA did not violate the enforce, attempts implement carry to or tion it did when not waive its Rule. Final- out the IHSAA Commissioner and Execu ly, the IHSAA contended thаt it could not tive Committee decisions “which deci required be to waive the Restitution Rule ruling sion[s] and are to the that effect Supreme because the Indiana Court Plaintiff par Jessah is to that determined the Restitution Rule was ticipate varsity interscholastic activities” valid and we Initially, enforceable. note immediately and ordered that Martin was that we have decided already the IHSAA’s eligible participate interscho final argument in favor of Martin. We lastic athletics at Luers. Record at 296. have also determined the trial court’s Thus, objective of the trial or court’s specific order sufficiently to allow the eligi der was that Martin immediately be IHSAA ascertain it what could could participate ble to at athletics Thus, question not do. only remaining Luers. willfully whether violated preliminary injunction. trial court determined injunction ‘places a direct mechanism consisted

“An defendant, personal duty upon the “coupled he the Restitution Rule with the ac directly personally respon [pre [or she] is tions in every taken thе IHSAA sible to the court for the accomplishment liminary [injunction cause action where ” object of the order.’ Hancz v. it does prevail.”8 Record that, therefore, filing appeal injunction 8. The IHSAA contends Luers was grounds agree contempt. cannot be We aware the Restitution Rule would used However, against with any player this contention. we do not or school which allowed a believe trial prelimi- court found that student athlete under a contempt solely nary injunction was in because the IHSAA if that over- were Rather, appeal. knowledge filed an we read ruled. on its Based how worked, findings court's mean Luers was mechanism Luers refused allow case, appéaled every preliminary aware participate. Martin In this the conse- prior making any its detrimental effect empowered, under The IHSAA is following 7.1(c), action to take the participation. decision allow Martin’s 17— that violates member school against a granted prelimi- The trial Martin a provided or directive disregards decision nary injunction because determined that by IHSAA rule:9 requirements hardship she met A school be:

c. member Rule 17-8.1.10 eligibility under Yet, (1) acknowledge Luers refused to the certain interschool prohibited decision, though trial even the deci- participation; or court’s athletic 17-8.1, on IHSAA Rule and sion was based (2) warned; or participate varsity to Martin refused let fined, (3) including forfeiting of the girls’ The had authori- basketball. IHSAA As- generated from the revenues ty against take action Luers because to sociation; or made the Luers violated decision within probation on suspended placed rules, namely the provisions of IHSAA period for a not to exceed met court’s determination that Martin the days by the Association. requirements hardship IHSAA’s own 4(h) By-laws of Section the IHSAA’s states eligibility and that she should be immedi- powers that and duties of the IHSAA’s the varsity ately eligible for level athletics. are to make and en- Executive Committee Instead, to the IHSAA chose take en- regulations necessary the “to make force against forcement action for refus- wording of spirit, purpоse effective the and The ing play to Martin. IHSAA believes the Cor- provisions By-Laws the the that the Restitution Rule had significant Furthermore, C~ IHSAA Rule poration.” partic- “never before been a deterrent of allows or Executive 3-7 the Commissioner ipation.” at 14. Howev- Appellant’s Brief impose appropriate to sanc- Committee er, objective the of the court’s order was upon tions member schools for violations varsity girls to play that Martin be allowed By-Laws. the rules set forth the IHSAA Clearly basketball at Luers. the The that the specifically IHSAA noted duty, court’s both the under only way through it can enforce its rules is injunction, preliminary ability, and the its The IHSAA knew that membership. Laws, By pursuant to its own Rules and to Rule would have a severe accomplish trial court’s take action to if it to detrimental effect on Luers chose objective. Like efforts of the landlord participate, allow to and that Luers Martin Hancz, response the Restitution Rule and the IHSAA’s efforts in would consider through quences se- of the Restitution Rule were so cаn be enforced its members. The compel Appellant Appellee acknowledge vere as to Luers to refuse to allow that the responsibilities participate, though imposes even she had duties and Martin granted varsity eligibility upon principals pursuant level and coaches and that all been preliminary agreed by injunction. The conse- member have abide schools quences especial- were the Restitution Rule these rules. ly daunting potential because Luers had the only girls to excel in basketball “hardship” provides 10. The IHSAA’s rule that during regular its season but also advance of, set aside the effect this post-season in the IHSAA tournament. case, the Rule if Transfer strict enforcement accomplish of the Rule would not the Rule’s judi- purpose, violated, spirit we 9. As footnote have taken if the of the Rule has not been stated in bylaws. cial of the IHSAA’s and if the circumstances are such notice acknowledges imposes hardship that that an undue would result from duties responsibilities upon principals striсt enforcement of Rule. IHSAA Further, “hardship” the con- coaches of its member schools. 17-8.1. To constitute acknowledges the member ditions which cause rule be violated school, agreed beyond and be re- "must be the control of the schools to abide coach, student, sponsible parents eli- enforcement the IHSAA’s and/or 17-8.4(a). gibility only way party.” rules and that the its rules affected IHSAARule argues beef, to the trial court’s the student has a “[i]f a reasonably diligent not constitute school, did [sic] with the the IHSAA.” energetic attempt ensure Martin Appellant’s However, Brief at 14. “[i]t is' a opportunity allowed settled principle the fact other per- girls’ basketball at Luers. The violating sons are a law in the same man- case, contempt, in in the lies IHSAA’s ner ... is not available aas matter of give failure take action to effect to justification or excuse.” Bird Johnson objective prelimi- the trial court’s 555, 559, 234 Ind. nary injunction. Thus, the fact that violating Luers was position dissent takes the preliminary injunction does not excuse the trial court cоuld not have ordered the IHSAA’s violation. pre- The terms IHSAA to waive its Restitution Rule. liminary injunction applied to both the However, a review Contempt close of the IHSAA and to Luers. Luers’ actions do Judgment reveals that the court trial did not relieve the IHSAA of duties pursu- its not order the IHSAA to waive its Restitu- ant to its By-Laws own Rules and or Rule, merely tion to but allowed it do so to pursuant to the trial preliminary court’s purge contempt. itself of the Specifically, injunction. Contempt Judgment the stated “the IHSAA may purge contempt by itself of The purpose of the IHSAA’s Transfer specifically waiving the enforcement of “preserve Rule is to integrity of inter- 17-6, Rule, the Restitution with re- school and to prevent athletics minimize spect Jessah Martin.” Record at 263. recruiting, proselytizing ‘jump- and school (emphasis Thus, supplied). if the IHSAA ” ing’ for athletic reasons.... IHSAA Rule, elected to waive its it Restitution Rule 19-4. The IHSAA has established a purged contempt would have itself of by procedure by transferring which student objective giving effect to of the trial athletes, have who been deniеd eli- preliminary injunction. court’s The gibility by pursuant to the IHSAA also could have fined Luers or compete Transfer are by allowed to otherwise action against taken the school obtaining preliminary injunction. The leaving the in place. Restitution Rule purpose procedure grant of this is to relief Thus, language Contempt of the Judg- to students once a court determines that broad, ment could been have more allow- given the students should have been full ing the of purge contempt IHSAA to itself playing eligibility despite initial through any actions under authorized its junior determination of limited Rules and By by any Laws other action varsity eligibility. purpose The objective which would have fulfilled the Rule, then, is to provide level preliminary injunction. Therefore, it playing was not field for error for trial court to allow schools whose athletes purge IHSAA to itself of by compete against those athletes who com- waiving its Restitution Rule. pete by of a court virtue order and are later ineligible. determined to have been The IHSAA also argues purpose, furtherance the Resti- trial court failed consider that the rea tution Rule provides the forfeiture of son was not participating was be individual or team titles if an awards or cause Luers had made the decision not individual is later determined to be ineligi- preliminary injunction. follow the Clearly, addition, if a ble. school receives or is violating Luers was the court’s preliminary receive funds from association injunction by failing to allow Martin to be tournament ineligible series which an part high team. Once a joins IHSAA, participates, school individual agrees to be the school is re- by Thus, bound rules. its quired its the receipts forfeit share of ag- theory The behind nience and frustration suffered competition.11 from the Id. grieved party assessing damages. place the schools Rule is the Restitution they would nearly position same in as language We do not find the not athlete have been had the trial court’s order be unclear. The However, as to the. applied participated. assessed, that “the order states case, kept the Restitution Rule in this facts filing Precipice its from the date of the student athlete qualified an otherwise five the sum of hundred Appeal, [sic] for varsity level athletics participating ($500.00)per day peri .... for the dollars all, as the the same effect producing of time the IHSAA remains od under eligibility decision IHSAA’s injunction. contempt” preliminary Transfer Rule. Record at 302. The eligibility provided Martin with full judgment The trial court’s during period varsity athletics that the IHSAA did specifically found have held her to limit IHSAA would showing viola- meet its burden specifically days ed for 365 after eligibility, sup- The evidence tion was willful. participation at Bellmont. Martin’s last finding and the deter- ports the preliminary injunction long would no contempt. mination of eligi fully er be in once Martin was effect varsity sports. ble Three IV par sixty-five days hundred after last Bellmont, ticipation at Martin would Monetary Assessment fully eligible sports. for been Thus, against the IHSAA the assessment the argument, its final As days would have terminated 365 after monetary the as IHSAA contends that Bellmont, at un participation Martin’s last by the trial court imposed sessment the the Restitution less IHSAA waived lan because the penal and unenforceable that time. prior to as when of the order is unclear to guage might penalty will and because it the abate found that Martin The trial court pay an indefinite amount be forced dam had suffered financial emotional to waive the Restitu agrees Martin until it contempt, ages of the result IHSAA’s objective of a civil primary tion Rule. “The ability specifically that Martin the had the punish is not to contempt proceeding college that her schol play basketball and defendant, the but to coerce action for being arship opportunities were hindered. party.” Crowley, aggrieved benefit contempt hearing, At the Luers basketball Thus, reme supra, 708 N.E.2d at 52. ability that Martin had the coach testified be in must dy contempt proceeding a civil play varsity basketball at Luers. How nature, in rather than ever, coercive or remedial gave testimony support he Id. the trial court deter punitive. Once had finding trial court’s that Martin contempt, it party may mines a is in order “ability play collegiate basketball and to oth monetary damages compensate colleges scholarships,” receive athletic injuries it as a party opportunity er for the incurred to ob been denied the ability, Meade v. Levett and that she contempt. result of serve her athletic 1172, scholarships. 1181. unable to obtain Ind.App., 671 N.E.2d would be the inconve- at 299.12 No other evidence of The trial court consider Record opinion specify 12. We note that this court’s 11. Rule 17-6 does not whether Martin, High School Athletic Ass'n v. among Indiana supra, other forfeited funds are divided "[t]here 731 N.E.2d at 12 states that participating tournament or schools preliminary injunction [in was evidence hearing] re- the forfeited are either whether funds accomplished ‍‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​‍that Martin is bas- by turned or retained the IHSAA. capable receiving player ketball scholar- college prac- ship, scout attended [and that]

773 See, damages presented. The restitution rule. monetary High Indiana support Ass’n, not the trial court’s evidence does Inc. Carlberg, School Athletic v. 694 per day finding that assess- (Ind.1997); $500.00 N.E.2d High Indiana Thus, damages. for financial ment was Ass’n, School Athletic Inc. v. Reyes, 694 unless the assessment and the amount (Ind.1997). N.E.2d 249 The court found nature, imposi- coercive in its thereof were application against of the rule a stu- However, would be erroneous. tion athlete dent “would be ^willful and specific findings made no con- trial court ...” finding unreasonable’ “there is an cerning the coercive nature of the $500.00 interest restitution and fairness to per day During assessment. schools which and who compete athletes hearing, questioned the IHSAA against ineligible Carlberg students.” at concerning its financial condition. Martin 235. Additionally, the court concluded sanctioned, requested IHSAA be that the restitution rule did not engender financially, improper as a deterrent disrespect judiciary and does not future use “impinge on the judiciary’s function.” requested trial court determine Further, at Carlberg the rule “does Rec- “gets what amount their attention.” purport to authorize interference with at such Although ord a rationale during court order the time it remains might impermissibly punitive be viewed as effect, but penal- authorizes restitutive nature, we clearly hold that it carried a ties when a temporary restraining order is Further, message coercive the IHSAA. ultimately challenged dissolved and the eli- was allowed to purge itself ” remains Id. gibility undisturbed.... waiving Restitution Rule 236 (quoting Mooney High Cardinal play. such that Martin would allowed to Mich. School School Athletic This evidence a conclusion that supports Ass’n, 437 Mich. 467 N.W.2d per day imposed assessment $500.00 (1991)). Thus, supreme the put court to the by trial court served a coercive func- bed the issue of whether a trial court tion, it an making appropriate thus sanc- enjoin preliminarily the from en- IHSAA judgment imposing tion. The trial court forcing its restitution order. The court per day against the the assessment $500.00 resoundingly answered no. proper. was IHSAA case, present In the a trial court was judgment The is affirmed. by preliminarily asked a student athlete to BAILEY, J., concurs. enjoin enforcing resti- IHSAA from its court, recognizing tution rule. The trial VAIDIK, J., separаte dissents with decision, Carlberg its limitations under the opinion. ordered instead that the was en- VAIDIK, Judge, dissenting to joined attempting eligi- from enforce its yet This at- appeal represents another bility directly or indirectly. decision either tack on unpopular the IHSAA’s restitution The initial order made mention majority’s ruling ignores rule. The Only after trial court restitution rule. supreme by our disguis- direction of contempt found the IHSAA in did the ing challenge validity a to the of the resti- purge court allow to itself of the IHSAA as a contempt tution rule issue. rule. contempt waiving restitution enjoins a trial court the enforce- Whether supreme previously

Our court has deter- initially ment of the restitution rule mined that is an for a abuse discretion enjoin purge itself con- trial court enforcement of the allows the IHSAA to quite possible, upon tice to watch her ...” It is if that earlier evidence. probable, Judge Boyer drawing was 774 eligibility decision. rule, indirectly enforcing its the restitution by waiving

tempt ordering court is simply the same—the initial order was result is The court’s enforcing its to refrain the IHSAA or inaction would as what action clear rule. This is contravention restitution order, consequently, violate supreme our court. dictates of of the disobey or- willfully did not this words, contempt under proceeding other or- majority contends that the der. The an not make this less action does sufficiently clear because der was enjoin the enforcement of attempt given opportunity rule. restitution waiving contempt by itself purge But, reasoning ig- restitution order. con- only just if another this is Even the fact that IHSAA was found nores case, should still win. tempt waiv- the court allowed contempt contempt, for punished to be before order rule a means to er of the restitution as commanding the be an order there must differently, contempt. further Put avoid doing or refrain from some- accused to do Clark, contempt finding, v. 37 the time thing. Clark notes, majority As the (Ind.Ct.App.1980). expected order was unclear to what was willfully disobey lawfully party must only became clear after of the IHSAA and party court order which entered fact.

notice, may not be held in party and a Furthermore, it is that the initial evident failing an comply with there is no ambiguous order was because Op. at 766 ambiguous or indefinite order. agreement as what conduct of the N.E.2d at (citing Meyer, 707 1031 contemptuous. majority 896). IHSAA was Further, Rendon, N.E.2d at 692 contemp- alternatively concludes express to include “[an] order which fails provide the the IHSAA’s fail- prohibition command or cannot tuous conduct was either contempt proceedings.” foundation or the to waive its restitution order ure Nicholas, N.E.2d Nicholas “energetically” ensure IHSAA’s failure (Ind.Ct.App.1985). that Martin was allowed 769, 771. Op. at Luers. basketball case, find- In this before the theory, contemptuous Under either ing, explicitly trial court failed to de- conduct occurred at the time of the court’s conduct that the IHSAA was lineate the Yet, the trial court ordered initial order. doing doing. or not Partic- refrained from per day imposed to be penalty $500 ularly, court’s initial order did not time initial order not at the of the court’s the IHSAA to waive its restitution order time initiated but rather at the as Martin or her As a order school. court’s appeal the trial decision.13 result, contempt finding, before the that the trial This leads the inference reasonably known could not have required contemptuous it waive con- that the court’s order court determined the This even its restitution order. more filing appeal. duct was the Martin, it is clear that convincing when action, of a Under the cloak enjoin complaint, asked the court represents appeal really another chal- the IHSAA from enforcement of the resti- rule. The lenge the restitution concerns court, yet apparently tution rule the restitution rule should be ad- about Carlberg, compliance specifi- with did not in political dressed in the arena and gener- the trial court cally do so. Instead judicial High forum. Sch. ally directly IHSAA from See Ind. ordered the order, agree majority party may court’s 13. I with the appealing held

775 Ass’n, Vasario, Inc. v. Athletic N.E.2d (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied.14

INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC

ASSOCIATION, INC., Gardner, Bob capacity

his as Commissioner

Indiana School Athletic Associa-

tion, Inc., Mary Keefer, in her

capacity Principal Bishop

High School, Appellants-Defendants, MARTIN, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Jessah

No. 02A05-0005-CV-178. Appeals

Court Indiana.

Dec. legislature bility § Our has addressed these con- See decisions. IND. CODE 20-5-63- establishing ‍‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​‍cerns an administrative review seq. 1 et panel eligi- in the IHSAA to better scrutinize

Case Details

Case Name: Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. Martin

Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals

Date Published: Dec 29, 2000

Citation: 741 N.E.2d 757

Docket Number: 02A03-0001-CV-029

Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.