ILNews

Court erred in dismissing claim with prejudice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of a woman's claims against her former tenants, finding the court misinterpreted a previous appellate ruling to support the dismissal.

In Peg Zaremba v. Jessica and John Navarez, No. 64A05-0809-CV-254, Peg Zaremba had filed a small claims eviction complaint against the Navarezes, which the court opinion refers to as Cause No. 629. Zaremba failed to appear for the initial hearing and bench trial and her counsel requested a dismissal without prejudice, which was granted.

A few months later, Zaremba filed another claim against the Navarezes for damages, referred to in the opinion as Cause No. 3733. The trial court dismissed her claim with prejudice, ruling Zaremba failed to explain her absence from the initial hearing in Cause No. 629 and didn't file a motion under Trial Rule 60 to set aside the dismissal. The trial court ruled her failure to appear and the dismissal was res judicata. The trial court also denied Zaremba's motion to correct error, finding she failed to appear for trial and noted it is a plaintiff's obligation to seek relief from a dismissal without prejudice under T.R. 60 prior to refilling a case, citing Multivest Properties v. Hughes, 671 N.E.2d 199 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).

But the trial court erred, both in determining the dismissal of Cause No. 629 served as res judicata and in its interpretation of Multivest. Cause No. 629 was dismissed without prejudice, which wasn't a judgment on the merits. As a result, Zaremba's complaint under Cause No. 3733 wasn't barred by res judicata, wrote Judge Elaine Brown.

The trial court misread what it believed the appellate court held in Multivest, wrote the judge. The Court of Appeals held that Indiana Small Claims Rule 10 is specific and "dismissal with prejudice is contemplated only when the plaintiff fails to appear after the claim has been refiled." Zaremba didn't fail to appear after she refiled her claim. The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing her claim with prejudice and denying her motion to correct error. The Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT