ILNews

COA upholds judgment in auction of towed car

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a father and daughter whose car was towed and later sold at auction, finding the towing company didn’t comply with the 15-day waiting period after placing notice in the newspaper before selling the car.

In Rick Gillespie, Dawn Gillespie and Rick's Towing and Maintenance, LLC v. Frank B. Niles and Kathryn Niles, No. 49A05-1102-CT-70, Rick and Dawn Gillespie’s company, Rick’s Towing and Maintenance, towed Kathryn Niles’ vehicle in December 2008. The car was still titled and registered to Kathryn’s father, Frank. Rick’s Towing sent notices to Frank, who lived at the same address as Kathryn, saying the Chevy Tahoe would be sold at public auction on Jan. 21, 2009, if it wasn’t claimed. On Jan. 6, the towing company contacted the Indianapolis Star about publishing notice of the sale, which ran Jan. 8. The vehicle was sold, and five days later the Nileses attempted to claim the car.

The Nileses sued for conversion, saying the Gillespies didn’t comply with the law regarding notice before selling a car at auction. The Gillespies filed a motion for summary judgment; the Nileses filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the Nileses and granted a judgment against the Gillespies instead of Rick’s Towing. The Nileses won $22,000 plus interest.

The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for the Nileses, finding the defendants didn’t comply with the statutory requirements under Indiana Code 9-22-5-15 to enforce their lien by selling the Tahoe at auction. The statute dictates that the car couldn’t be sold before 15 days “after the date the advertisement required by subsection (d) has been placed or after notice required by subsection (e) has been sent, whichever is later.”

The Gillespies argued that they complied with the statute because they placed the ad with the newspaper 15 days before the sale by contacting the Indianapolis Star and it wasn’t their fault it didn’t run until two days later.

“The only reasonable interpretation of ‘placed’ in this context is that the advertisement had to be published at least fifteen days before the sale,” wrote Judge Michael Barnes. “The Defendants failed to wait the required fifteen days before selling the vehicle at the auction. As a result, the Defendants failed to meet the statutory requirements to auction the vehicle.”

The trial court did err by granting summary judgment against the Gillespies personally rather than against Rick’s Towing only. The Gillespies’ actions were performed as employees of the company and don’t demonstrate a basis for piercing the corporate veil, the appellate court held.


 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT