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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?