Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS Stephen E. Culley Katherine J. Rybak Indiana Legal Services, Inc. Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Gloria J. Rahman Gregory S. Schnarr Ferdinand, Indiana

In the

FILED
Aug 30 2011, 2:07 pm
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

Indiana Supreme Court
No. 62S01-1103-SC-141 QUINCY BRANHAM & SHANNON BRANHAM,

CLERK

Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. RODNEY VARBLE & NORMAN CHASTAIN, Appellees (Defendants below).

Appeal from the Perry Circuit Court, No. 62C01-0902-SC-00036 The Honorable Lucy Goffinet The Honorable Karen A. Werner, Magistrate On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 62A01-1004-SC-00192

August 30, 2011 Shepard, Chief Justice.

After conducting proceedings supplemental in a case on the small claims docket, the trial court ordered two self-represented judgment debtors to pay on the judgment despite their lack of non-exempt income. We reverse, holding that entitlement to the very ordinary statutory

exemptions at issue here is not forfeited by failure of an unrepresented litigant to plead them as an affirmative defense in the course of purposefully informal small claims processes.

Facts and Procedural History

The case in this appeal was styled Branham v. Varble & Chastain. A second case was styled Branham v. Varble & Varble, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2011), and we decide it today by separate opinion.

In this case, the court entered a consent judgment on March 12, 2009, in the amount of $4350.75 plus $99 in court costs. In November 2009, the parties tendered an agreed garnishment order. The second case produced a judgment for $2750.50 plus $96 in costs.

Proceedings supplemental were filed in both cases.

Both cases involved the same

judgment debtors and had one plaintiff in common. The trial court held a single hearing to receive evidence. Because the only issue in proceedings supplemental is the extent of the debtor`s non-exempt property subject to execution, the evidence and issues were identical in both cases. The Branhams were not represented by counsel at this proceeding. Mr. Branham testified that he makes $100 per week working for Harrison`s Auto Salvage. (Tr. at 5, 10.) He has worked there almost four years. (Tr. at 5.) Prior to working at Harrison`s, he was unemployed and looking for work for three years. (Tr. at 13.) Mrs. Branham receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI) of $674 per month. (Tr. at 8.) These are the couple`s only sources of income. (Tr. at 8.) The Branhams pay $400 in monthly rent out of Mrs. Branham`s SSI. (Tr. at 8.) The two split the remaining living expenses including food and utilities. (Tr. at 10, 11.) Mr. Branham has purchased a $2500 truck so that he could make it back and forth to make money. (Tr. at 11.) He pays $200 a month on the truck. (Tr. at 7.)

The court ordered the Branhams to pay $50 per month on this judgment (and $50 per month on the other judgment, for a total of $100 per month). It also ordered Mr. Branham to

2

apply for five jobs per week and submit proof to the plaintiff`s lawyer. The judge also scheduled a status conference in June to check on Mr. Branham`s job situation.

The Branhams appealed with assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order to pay $50 per month and reversed the order to apply for five jobs per week. Branham v. Varble & Chastain, 937 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). We granted transfer, 944 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. 2011) (table), vacating the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Standard of Review

We review facts from a bench trial under the clearly erroneous standard with due deference paid to the trial court`s opportunity to assess witness credibility. Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. 2008). This deferential standard of review is particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are informal, with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice` between parties according to the rules of substantive law. Id. at 1199 (quoting City of Dunkirk Water & Sewage Dep`t v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115, 116 (Ind. 1995)). The only issues presented in this case are questions of law. Accordingly, we review them de novo. Id. As a preliminary matter, we note that Varble and Chastain have not filed an appellee`s brief. Under that circumstance, we do not undertake to develop the appellee`s arguments. Rather, we will reverse upon an appellant`s prima facie showing of reversible error. Id.

I.

Courts Cannot Order Debtors to Pay Out of Exempt Income.

The Branhams first argue that the trial court should not have ordered payment because there was no evidence that the Branhams had any non-exempt income. (Appellant`s Br. at 4

Download Quincy Branham & Shannon Branham v. Rodney Varble & Norman Chastain.pdf

Indiana Law