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

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT