ILNews

Appeals court warns parties against no-response strategy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior judge didn’t err in holding a big tax resolution company in contempt for failing to appear by closing six of its state offices and then issuing a default judgment against the firm, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today in the class-action case of JK Harris & Company LLC v. Ronald Sandlin, No. 49A05-1003-CT-184, affirming the judgments by Marion Superior Judge Thomas Carroll.

South Carolina-based JK Harris, which has hundreds of offices in 43 states, advertises that it can help individuals settle their IRS tax debts for pennies on the dollar. But that didn’t happen in this Indianapolis case of Ronald Sandlin, who sued in August 2009 on claims that he was misled and the company didn’t perform the actions it had promised.

Sandlin learned from the IRS in 2006 that he’d been delinquent in his federal income tax payments, and so he hired JK Harris and paid $4,350 for tax relief help. Two settlement offers from the firm were rejected by the federal tax agency, and ultimately JK Harris wasn’t able to achieve any reduction in that tax debt and the company refused to refund Sandlin’s initial fee. He sued, alleging negligence, breach of contract, deceptive advertisement, and unjust enrichment. The case ultimately received class certification in late 2009. But while his counsel certified the notices and the Marion Superior Court later did the same, JK Harris didn’t enter an appearance and failed to appear at two proceedings.

In January 2010, Judge Carroll found JK Harris in contempt of court, fined the company $10,000, and also issued writs of attachment ordering the closure of offices in Bloomington, Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Lafayette and South Bend.

After learning its Indiana offices had been closed, JK Harris hired counsel and got involved in the litigation in February 2010, filing a motion to stay the proceedings, set aside the default judgment and class certification, and compel arbitration that it claimed was required in Sandlin’s contract. Judge Carroll denied those motions and set up this appeal.

The Indiana Court of Appeals criticized the company for ignoring the suit and court proceedings, warning that regardless of the merits its arguments may have had it doesn’t allow for parties to simply not participate once an issue goes to court.

Despite the proper service of Sandlin’s complaint and filings, JK Harris “apparently concluded that it was not worth its time and effort to respond in any manner until its Indiana offices had been padlocked by the Marion Superior Court,” the court wrote. “JK Harris’s arguments in this regard show only that it consciously ignored the Marion Superior Court for approximately five and one-half months and then hired able counsel to attempt to remove it from the deep procedural and substantive hole of its own making. Any ‘extraordinary circumstances’ it might and does allege to satisfy the requirements of Trial Rule 60(B)(8) are circumstances that would have been avoided with a timely responsive pleading after initial service of the complaint.”

The six offices that Judge Carroll ordered shut down remain closed, according to defense attorney Gary Miller with Miller Meyer in Indianapolis. This appellate ruling remands the case for the trial judge to further define the class of litigants. Miller says that his firm is reviewing the ruling to determine whether a transfer petition may be filed with the Indiana Supreme Court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT