ILNews

Attorney must pay credit card company

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Illinois attorney has lost his appeal in his fight against a credit card company seeking to collect money owed on a Discover card.

Max Bonecutter, who is a member of the Illinois bar, but not Indiana’s bar, challenged a small claims judgment entered of $4,569.17 and court costs in favor of Discover Bank in LaPorte Superior Court. Bonecutter had fought the claim and moved to dismiss it. He did not respond to multiple requests for discovery from Discover for more than a year. The case eventually went to trial after denying motions for summary judgment by both parties, and the trial court granted judgment in favor of Discover and against Bonecutter.

In Max H. Bonecutter v. Discover Bank, No. 46A04-1009-SC-598, Bonecutter made three arguments to the Indiana Court of Appeals – that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 41(E) for failure to prosecute; the evidence was insufficient to show the formation or breach of an agreement; and his due process rights were violated.

Bonecutter claimed that Discover’s attorney didn’t take any action in the case for more than a year, so the matter should have been dismissed. But there’s no history of an egregious pattern of deliberate delay on the part of Discover, and Bonecutter didn’t ask for the trial court’s assistance in resolving the matter before filing his motion to dismiss.

“Further, dismissal under the circumstances would run counter to Indiana’s oft-stated policy of having cases decided on their merits whenever possible. The record does not show that the requirements for dismissal for failure to prosecute as set forth in Rule 41(E) were satisfied,” wrote Judge Elaine Brown.

Bonecutter argued that he couldn’t determine if it was his signature on the application document because Discover provided only a copy of it, and that even if a contract existed, the company didn’t prove he breached an obligation under the contract. But Discover provided sufficient evidence for the small claims court to find that an agreement existed between Bonecutter and Discover pursuant to which Bonecutter was required to make certain payments to Discover under the terms of the cardmember agreement, and he didn’t make those payments, wrote the judge.

Finally, the appellate court found that Bonecutter’s due process rights weren’t violated. He argued that they were because he didn’t receive proper notice or a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. He claimed that the court assisted Discover’s attorney “to conduct a kangaroo court” where the attorney tried to wring admissions from Bonecutter and treated the attorney as a court employee and allowed him to engage in ex parte communications.

The record reflects that the trial court provided Bonecutter with numerous opportunities to produce discovery and present defenses before the court. He didn’t show how he was prejudiced by any procedural error with respect to the initial notice of claim or any other alleged due process error, the court found.

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 work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT