ILNews

Court: Company must pay for suit

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered a company that brought a frivolous lawsuit to pay for the attorney fees and other costs of the defending party.

In Natare Corporation v. Cardinal Accounts, Inc., 49A05-0704-CV-210, the Court of Appeals granted Natare's motion to tax costs regarding a suit against them brought by Cardinal Accounts. The trial court reinstated Cardinal's complaint, which sat in limbo for months because Cardinal made no action in the case. When Natare appealed the complaint, the Court of Appeals tossed it out, citing Cardinal's lack of any attempt to establish it had a meritorious claim and that the company's multiple unexplained delays didn't constitute exceptional circumstances.

Chief Judge John Baker wrote that Natare should be reimbursed by Cardinal pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 67 the costs of the filing fee, transcript preparation, appendix production, and postage, for a total of $333.68.

The appellate court also granted Natare's attorney fees for the appeal be paid for by Cardinal because Cardinal's suit was clearly frivolous.

"Natare was forced to appeal the erroneous result of the frivolous litigation and should not have to bear the financial burden of its attorneys' services during the appellate process," wrote Chief Judge Baker.

The appellate court remands the issue to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney fees owed to Natare, as well as to order Cardinal to pay Natare's costs in the amount of $333.68.
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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT