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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.