ILNews

COA: Judge could raise affirmative defense on behalf of pro se defendant

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A small-claims court may decide a case based upon the statute of limitations even if a defendant didn’t raise or mention it at trial but the issue was discussed during trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in an issue of first impression.

In Wolverine Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jeremy Oliver, No. 20A03-1003-SC-162, Wolverine Mutual Insurance Co. claimed Elkhart Superior Judge Olga Stickel erred in deciding its action against Jeremy Oliver based upon the statute of limitations when Oliver didn’t raise or argue that affirmative defense.

Oliver caused an accident with an insured of Wolverine. The insurer sued him in small-claims court to recover the amount it paid out as a result of the accident. Oliver represented himself. Judge Stickel brought up the fact the case was filed outside of the statute of limitations and allowed Wolverine to submit a memorandum regarding statue of limitations. The judge denied Wolverine’s claim finding it was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. She also denied the motion to correct error.

Other jurisdictions have held that trial courts may not sua sponte inject the defense of the statute of limitations where the defendant hasn’t pleaded or argued it, but the Court of Appeals found the opposite based on Indiana’s relaxed rules in the small-claims setting and the provision in Small Claims Rule 4(A) that places the statute of limitations at issue without the need for the defendant to raise it.

The judges also found the instant case to be different from Lechner v. Reutepohler, 545 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). Lechner held that a small-claims defendant must litigate the issue of the statute of limitations at trial in order to preserve it for appeal. But in Lechner, the defendants argued the statute of limitations for the first time in a motion to correct error; in the instant case, the issue was raised at trial by the court.

“It seems clear that the primary rationale implicitly underpinning the holding in Lechner is that the failure to inject the issue at trial fatally compromised the plaintiff’s ability to defend against it at a later time. Such would not be an issue in the instant case,” wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

The court saw the notice of claim against Oliver had been filed more than two years after the date of the accident, brought it to the attention of Wolverine’s attorney, and gave the company the full opportunity to address the merits of the defense.

Although the panel didn’t want to go so far as to say it was incumbent upon a small-claims court to develop the statute of limitations issue on behalf of pro se litigants, it didn’t see any reason to justify forbidding a small-claims court from sua sponte soliciting argument on an affirmative defense that is explicitly deemed at issue by S.C.R. 4(A). The judges affirmed the small-claims court denial of the claim.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT