ILNews

COA upholds judgment in auction of towed car

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a father and daughter whose car was towed and later sold at auction, finding the towing company didn’t comply with the 15-day waiting period after placing notice in the newspaper before selling the car.

In Rick Gillespie, Dawn Gillespie and Rick's Towing and Maintenance, LLC v. Frank B. Niles and Kathryn Niles, No. 49A05-1102-CT-70, Rick and Dawn Gillespie’s company, Rick’s Towing and Maintenance, towed Kathryn Niles’ vehicle in December 2008. The car was still titled and registered to Kathryn’s father, Frank. Rick’s Towing sent notices to Frank, who lived at the same address as Kathryn, saying the Chevy Tahoe would be sold at public auction on Jan. 21, 2009, if it wasn’t claimed. On Jan. 6, the towing company contacted the Indianapolis Star about publishing notice of the sale, which ran Jan. 8. The vehicle was sold, and five days later the Nileses attempted to claim the car.

The Nileses sued for conversion, saying the Gillespies didn’t comply with the law regarding notice before selling a car at auction. The Gillespies filed a motion for summary judgment; the Nileses filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the Nileses and granted a judgment against the Gillespies instead of Rick’s Towing. The Nileses won $22,000 plus interest.

The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for the Nileses, finding the defendants didn’t comply with the statutory requirements under Indiana Code 9-22-5-15 to enforce their lien by selling the Tahoe at auction. The statute dictates that the car couldn’t be sold before 15 days “after the date the advertisement required by subsection (d) has been placed or after notice required by subsection (e) has been sent, whichever is later.”

The Gillespies argued that they complied with the statute because they placed the ad with the newspaper 15 days before the sale by contacting the Indianapolis Star and it wasn’t their fault it didn’t run until two days later.

“The only reasonable interpretation of ‘placed’ in this context is that the advertisement had to be published at least fifteen days before the sale,” wrote Judge Michael Barnes. “The Defendants failed to wait the required fifteen days before selling the vehicle at the auction. As a result, the Defendants failed to meet the statutory requirements to auction the vehicle.”

The trial court did err by granting summary judgment against the Gillespies personally rather than against Rick’s Towing only. The Gillespies’ actions were performed as employees of the company and don’t demonstrate a basis for piercing the corporate veil, the appellate court held.


 

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 practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT