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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT