ILNews

Appellate court finds lawsuit brought in bad faith

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today for a fifth time on a contentious family dispute over the estate of deceased parents, affirming a small claims court judgment in favor of two of the siblings for damages and fees against their brother and his wife.

Obed Kalwitz Jr., his wife Rolene, and Obed Jr.’s siblings Eugene Kalwitz and Sharon Grieger have been involved in litigation since the death of their mother in 1995. They were in dispute over 331 acres of land that Obed Jr. had gotten his parents to transfer to him for only $40 and other issues. In the instant case, Obed Jr. and Rolene sued the siblings claiming they stole property from that 331 acres, which now belongs to Eugene and Sharon, who served as personal representatives of their parents’ estates. Obed Sr. died in 1989.

After years of litigation, the parties mediated their pending matters in October 2006. As part of the settlement agreement, Obed Jr. had 30 days to remove certain personal property from the estates. He filed an affidavit saying he removed all the property he wanted and forfeited the right to remove any other property on the 331 acres. Eugene and Sharon later discovered he had booby trapped the land.

More than a year after the judge discharged Eugene and Sharon as personal representatives and closed the estate, Obed Jr. and his wife filed the small claims action alleging his siblings stole items from the land that belonged to him. Eugene and Sharon counterclaimed for compensatory damages for abuse of process, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. The judge ruled in favor of the siblings, awarding them a total of $5,400.

In Obed Kalwitz, Jr., et al. v. Eugene Kalwitz, et al., No. 46A03-0912-CV-574, Obed Jr. and Rolene appealed the judgment, claiming the court erred by denying their request for a change of judge, determining that their claim was barred by res judicata, and by awarding damages and attorney’s fees to Eugene and Sharon.

The appellate judges found their change of judge request to be untimely. They filed their claim in February 2009, but didn’t file their request for a special judge until August. They also failed to personally verify, make allegations of when or how the cause was first discovered, or why they couldn’t have discovered the cause earlier as required by Indiana Trial Rule 76(C)(6).

Their claims are also barred by res judicata because their claim that the record doesn’t support a finding that a former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction failed, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. Their argument that there’s no indication in the record that their claim was or could have been determined in the estate proceedings also failed.

Obed Jr. and Rolene also challenged five of the small claims court’s findings as being unsupported by the evidence, but the appellate court found their challenges were supported by the record. The judges also upheld the compensatory and punitive damages award, finding the couple acted with “malice and oppressiveness” and the award was imposed to deter further litigation.

The court also awarded appellate attorney’s fees and costs to Eugene and Sharon, concluding that Obed Jr. and Rolene’s appeal, “and indeed the entire lawsuit, was brought in bad faith and for purposes of harassment,” wrote Judge Vaidik. The matter was remanded for a determination of the amount of fees and costs.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT