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. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  2. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  3. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

  4. My dear Smith, I was beginning to fear, from your absense, that some Obrien of the Nanny State had you in Room 101. So glad to see you back and speaking truth to power, old chum.

  5. here is one from Reason magazine. these are not my words, but they are legitimate concerns. http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc quote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds, has issued a new "intelligence report" announcing that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) -- a 244% jump." To illustrate how dangerous these groups are, the Center cites some recent arrests of right-wing figures for planning or carrying out violent attacks. But it doesn't demonstrate that any of the arrestees were a part of the Patriot milieu, and indeed it includes some cases involving racist skinheads, who are another movement entirely. As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible." --- I wonder if all the republicans that belong to the ISBA would like to know who and why this outfit was called upon to receive such accolades. I remember when they were off calling Trent Lott a bigot too. Preposterous that this man was brought to an overwhelmingly republican state to speak. This is a nakedly partisan institution and it was a seriously bad choice.

ADVERTISEMENT