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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?