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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT