Separate notice argument not enough to vacate small claims judgment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A business’s argument that it should have been served with a separate notice of a small claims action was rejected by the Indiana Court of Appeals Friday.

The appeals court affirmed a denial of KOA Properties LLC’s motion to set aside default judgment. In KOA Properties LLC v Laura Matheison, 48A04-1207-SC-365, the Court of Appeals ruled that KOA failed to establish the lower court abused its discretion by denying the business’s motion because the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction.

A default judgment for $4,300 plus court costs was entered against KOA in February 2012. In a dispute over a lease, Laura Matheison had filed a notice of small claim against “Todd Culp, KOA Properties LLC aka/Woodpoint.” The notice was sent by certified mail and Culp, owner and property manager of KOA, accepted it.

However Culp did not open the certified mail and neither he nor KOA appeared at the small claims hearing. The court subsequently entered a default judgment against Culp.

Culp successfully argued that he had been improperly named individually in the suit because KOA is an LLC. The trial court then vacated the judgment against Culp but refused to set aside the judgment against KOA because the business had not shown it had a “good and valid defense.”

KOA’s motion to vacate the default judgment was denied by the trial court. In its appeal, KOA asserted the small claims court did not have personal jurisdiction over KOA because the business was not listed as a separate party defendant on the notice of the claim and KOA was not separately served with the notice.  

The COA disagreed. It ruled KOA was listed as a separate defendant because the notice of the claim clearly included KOA as a party defendant, and the address listed on the notice of the claim was KOA’s address and Culp was the acknowledged owner and property manager of KOA.

Further the Court of Appeals observed that separate service would have been sent to the same address and directed to the same person, Todd Culp.

“We cannot agree with KOA that when Culp accepted the certified mailing addressed to ‘Todd Culp (KOA Properties LLC)’ at KOA’s business address there was a total failure to serve process on KOA,” Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote for the court. “… KOA was provided with service reasonably calculated to inform KOA that a small claims action had been instituted against it.”


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. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  2. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.

  3. maybe if some of the socia workers would treat the foster parents better, they would continue to fostr.

  4. We have been asked to take in a 2 no old baby because mother is in very unstable situation. We want to do this but will need help with expenses such as medical and formula... Do we have to have custody thru court?

  5. Very troubling. A competent public defender is very much the right of every indigent person in the US or the Fifth amendment becomes meaningless. And considering more and more of us are becoming poorer and poorer under this "system," the need for this are greater than ever.... maybe they should study the Federals and see how they manage their program? And here's to thanking all the PD attorneys out there who do a good job.