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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT