ILNews

Unrepresented litigants don't forfeit exemptions even if not pleaded

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a couple who were ordered in small claims court to pay $100 a month toward judgments and look for work each week. The couple’s only income is exempt under the general wage and the Social Security Income exemptions.

Quincy and Shannon Branham were unrepresented by counsel when the trial judge ordered them to pay on two separate garnishment actions. They did not assert that their income was exempt and the judge did not assert the two applicable statutory exemptions – general wage and Social Security Income – on their behalf. Quincy only made $100 a week working at a salvage yard; his wife Shannon receives $674 a month in SSI. After paying for rent, their car, food, and utilities, they said they have no money left over each month.

They appealed the order in each case, which also included that Quincy submit five job applications a week and show proof to the plaintiff’s attorney. The judge also scheduled a status conference to check on Quincy’s job situation.

The Indiana Court of Appeals was divided over whether Mims v. Commercial Credit Corp., 261 Ind. 591, 307 N.E.2d 867 (1974), requires a trial court to assert exemptions in garnishment actions on behalf of debtors who aren’t represented by counsel. The majority held the trial court shouldn’t assert those exemptions. The appellate court unanimously agreed the judge shouldn’t have ordered Quincy to submit five job applications a week.

In two opinions released Tuesday, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding that entitlement to the statutory exemptions at issue in the case is not forfeited by the failure of an unrepresented litigant to plead them as an affirmative defense “in the course of purposefully informal small claims proceedings.”

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard authored Quincy Branham & Shannon Branham v. Rodney Varble & Norman Chastain, No. 62S01-1103-SC-141, and the companion opinion, Quincy Branham & Shannon Branham v. Rodney Varble & Carol Varble, No. 62S04-1103-SC-139.

Citing Mims, the chief justice wrote that the Supreme Court held if a debtor-defendant isn’t represented by an attorney, the trial court must determine whether the debtor is a resident-householder, and, if so, which exemption would be least burdensome on the debtor.  The Branhams argued that Indiana Code 24-4.5-5-105(2)(b) exempts their income, as it limits the amount that can be garnished from any single workweek to the lesser of 25 percent of that week’s disposable earnings – the part of the earnings remaining after required deductions such as taxes – or  the amount of that week’s disposable income that exceeds 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage. The Branhams haven’t had to pay federal or state income taxes since 2003 and Quincy doesn’t have any money withheld from his wages.

Using Quincy’s weekly wages, 25 percent would be $25 a week. The federal minimum wage at the time of the proceedings supplement was $7.25 an hour. Thirty times the minimum wage is $217.50. Since Quincy’s weekly wages don’t exceed that amount, all of his wages are protected from garnishment, wrote the chief justice. Shannon’s SSI income is not subject to garnishment.

“The facts of this case suggest why holding unrepresented litigants to account on appeal for affirmatively pleading particular exemptions may often prove too harsh,” wrote the chief justice. “We finish by emphasizing that a judicial officer hearing small claims is not charged with identifying and applying the entire gamut of exemptions. The two involved here — the general wage exemption and the SSI exemption — are the stuff of everyday life in collections work. We cannot say on appeal that they are lost through failure of formal pleading.”

In addition to reversing the order that Branhams pay $50 a month in each case, the justices held that a court doesn’t err when it orders a party to return for status checks a limited number of times, even if an information of contempt hasn’t been filed.  The high court also agreed with the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in ordering Quincy to submit five job applications a week, as orders to seek employment or better employment aren’t a proper part of a proceeding supplemental.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT