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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT