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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT