ILNews

Judges rule on issues stemming from cemetery case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on matters involving alleged looting of cemetery funds in two cases Monday, upholding the denial of class certification in one case and adopting a “plain legal prejudice” standard in the other case.

A proposed class-action lawsuit was filed against Memory Gardens Management Corp. regarding alleged misappropriation of millions of dollars in trust funds by the original owners of the corporation, the new owner — Ansure Mortuaries of Indiana, and other entities. William Fishback’s suit sought to recover damages for customers who had paid for perpetual care services; Angela Farno was later added as a plaintiff. She had pre-paid for space and services. Her complaint alleged 11 counts, including claims under Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Practices Act and violations of statutes governing cemetery trust accounts.

After the proposed class action was filed, the receiver appointed by the Indiana Securities Commissioner filed a complaint asserting similar claims. The class-action claims regarding the perpetual care services were dismissed, leaving Farno as the only named plaintiff. She filed a motion for class certification, which the trial court denied because it found that action was not superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy under Indiana Trial Rule 23(B)(3). The Court of Appeals took up the matter on interlocutory appeal.

After she filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending an appeal, another business agreed to acquire Ansure’s mortuary business and maintain the cemeteries. Farno sought to lift the stay so she could seek preliminary approval of a class-action settlement she had reached with some defendants, including Ansure and the receiver. Matthew Goldberg and his company, Indiana Investment, were the only non-settling defendants to object. Goldberg was alleged to have issued worthless debentures to the trust accounts in order to conceal the misappropriation of funds. The trial court granted preliminary approval to the class-action settlement. The Court of Appeals also accepted Goldberg’s appeal on interlocutory appeal.

In Angela K. Farno v. Ansure Mortuaries of Indiana, LLC, et al., No. 41A05-1002-PL-104, the appellate court affirmed the denial of Farno’s motion for class certification. Farno argued the trial court shouldn’t have considered the receiver’s action or an action brought by the Securities Commissioner in its superiority analysis under T.R. 23(B)(3). The judges cited Kamm v. California City Development Co., 509 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1975), as a case supporting that actions brought by third parties are superior to a class action to rule on issues between the class-action plaintiffs and defendants.

Citing Kamm, the judges found Farno and the receiver brought similar claims against many of the same defendants. In addition, Farno didn’t cite any authority for her suggestion that a trial court may not consider factors other than the four listed in T.R. 23(B)(3) when deciding the question of superiority.

“Farno’s stated purpose for requesting class certification was to ‘resolv[e] the customers’ claims to restore the pre-need trust funds and to ensure that customers’ pre-paid burial services and merchandise will be provided when they pass away,’” wrote Judge Terry Crone. “However, the Securities Commissioner’s Action, the Receiver’s Action, and the pending sale of the cemeteries were all geared toward restoring both the pre-need trust funds and the perpetual care trust funds, which would in turn ensure both that the customers’ pre-paid burial services and merchandise will be provided when they pass away and that their burial sites will be cared for in perpetuity. As such, these alternative methods were clearly better suited for ‘handling the total controversy’ in the words of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee.”

In Matthew Goldberg, et al. v. Angela K. Farno, et al., No. 41A01-1007-MF-348, the judges affirmed the trial court’s preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and other circuits have adopted the doctrine that a defendant must “prove plain legal prejudice in order to have standing to challenge a partial settlement to which it is not a party,” wrote Judge Crone. Indiana Trial Rule 41(a)(2) is substantially similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) regarding voluntary dismissals. The appellate court adopted the “plain legal prejudice” standard based on Federal Rule 41(a)(2) for determining whether a non-settling defendant has standing to challenge a partial settlement to which it is not a party, whether “in a class action or simply ordinary litigation.”

Goldberg failed to establish plain legal prejudice in this case. The class settlement didn’t interfere with his contractual rights, his ability to seek contribution or indemnification, nor did it strip him of a legal claim or cause of action, wrote Judge Crone. He has no standing to challenge the ruling.

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 can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  4. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  5. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

ADVERTISEMENT