ILNews

Moving chattel for suit doesn't establish venue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In its opinion today regarding a breach of warranty case, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to define for the first time what "regularly located or kept" meant for purposes of Indiana Trial Rule 75(A)(2).

In Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. v. Joseph and Dawn Cronin, No. 48A02-0808-CV-686, Gulf Stream Coach appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue to Elkhart County from Madison County. Joseph and Dawn Cronin, who lived in Pennsylvania, filed a suit against the RV maker after they claim they began having various problems with the RV just a few months after purchase. The Cronins left the RV in a parking lot in Anderson, Ind., in February 2006 and filed its complaint in September 2006 in Madison Circuit Court. Gulf Stream argued Elkhart County was the preferred venue because that's where the company's principal office is located. The trial court denied the company's motion to dismiss or transfer, ruling the RV was regularly kept in Madison County for several months before the suit was filed and continues to be there.

In determining whether Madison County also qualified as a preferred venue, the Court of Appeals examined Rule 75(A)(2) and focused on the meaning of "regularly." The appellate court discovered the meaning of "regularly" hadn't been the subject of any Indiana appellate opinions.

Gulf Stream argued the motor home was brought to Madison County only for purposes of the litigation and therefore wasn't "regularly" located or kept in the county.

Because the Cronins have no connection to Madison County other than the litigation, the Court of Appeals deduced the couple seemed to have either picked Madison County for purposes of the litigation and then chose an attorney, or picked an attorney in Madison County and then brought the RV to that county, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

The trial court was incorrect to rule that because the motor home sat in the parking lot for seven months that it was "regularly located or kept" there. Using the Webster's Dictionary definition of "regular," the appellate court ruled the RV was brought to Madison County for the purposes of the litigation and that the use of "regularly" in the trial rule was included to prevent a party from establishing preferred venue by simply moving chattel to a certain location in anticipation of a lawsuit, she wrote.

"As such, we hold that, when a party moves a chattel to a county, whether from out-of-state or from another Indiana county, solely for purposes of litigation, that county does not become the county where the chattel is "regularly located and kept" under Rule 75(A)(2) and therefore is not a preferred venue under Rule 75," she wrote.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT