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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT