ILNews

COA affirms the voiding of $500,000 default judgment against American Legion post

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior court correctly set aside default judgment against an American Legion post after finding the method employed to serve process on the organization was not the best way to inform it of a woman’s lawsuit, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

Mary L. Anderson slipped and fell on property owned by the Wayne Post 64, American Legion Corp. in June 2010. She sued and received a default judgment of $500,000 in 2012 when the American Legion failed to appear or respond to the complaint.

American Legion moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing it was void because Anderson had not served her complaint on it, so the court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over the organization.

Anderson had a Marion County Sheriff’s deputy leave a copy of the complaint and summons at 601 S. Holt Road, the registered address of Robert Eakins, the registered agent for the organization. But the deputy left the copy at the door of an outbuilding to the post instead of at the main building. Ken Cooper, the current registered agent for the American Legion, testified that the location of the door would make it difficult for someone to notice anything left there, and that it could have easily been blown away.

The sheriff’s deputy also mailed a copy of the complaint and summons by first class mail to the address.

Marion Superior Judge Heather Welch overturned the default judgment finding it void because of insufficient service of process. The Court of Appeals agreed.

“There is no question that Anderson failed to serve the American Legion in a manner authorized by our Trial Rules,” Judge Edward Najam wrote in Mary L. Anderson v. Wayne Post 64, American Legion Corp., 49A05-1309-CT-442. He noted that the copy of the summons and complaint should have been mailed by registered or certified mail, which requires acknowledgement of receipt, as outlined in Rule 4.1(A)(1). In addition, the sheriff’s deputy did not serve Eakins personally as required under Rule 4.1(A)(2).

The judges rejected Anderson’s claim that her attempt to serve process was still adequate. The deputy did not leave the summons and complaint in a place or with a person reasonably calculated to apprise the American Legion of her lawsuit against it, let alone employ a method that was better calculated to give notice than the methods authorized by the Trial Rules, Najam wrote.

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT