Breneman v. Slusher
Decision Date | 10 May 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 71A03-0110-CV-338.,71A03-0110-CV-338. |
Citation | 768 N.E.2d 451 |
Parties | Ron BRENEMAN, Appellant-Defendant, v. Clifford SLUSHER d/b/a Slusher Hardwoods, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
William L. LaBre, J.D., The Law Office of William L. LaBre, J.D., Edwardsburg, MI, Attorney for Appellant.
Lynn M. Butcher, Don G. Blackmond, Jr., South Bend, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Ron Breneman (Appellant) appeals the denial of his motion to set aside the default judgment entered against him in an action filed by Clifford Slusher, d/b/a Slusher Hardwoods. Appellant presents the following consolidated, restated issues for review:
1. Did the trial court have personal jurisdiction over Ron Breneman?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment entered against Breneman?
We affirm.
The facts are that on March 11, 2000, Slusher entered into a timber contract with Michiana Hardwoods, Inc. (the First Contract). Greg Breneman,1 who owned Michiana with his wife, Romana Breneman, signed the contract on behalf of Michiana. Under that contract, for the sum of $110,000, Michiana sold Slusher the rights to all usable timber or cut logs on certain property owned by Steve Cooreman in St. Joseph County, Indiana. The contract identified the timber in question as "trees on Steve Cooreman cont[ract]." This language referred to a contract (the Second Contract) that was, in fact, executed two days later, on March 13, 2000, between Michiana and Cooreman, d/b/a Cooreman Real Estate. Under the provisions of the Second Contract, Michiana agreed to pay Cooreman $90,000 for the rights to timber located on Cooreman's land in St. Joseph County. In essence, in the First Contract, Michiana assigned to Slusher the timber rights it would acquire two days later from Cooreman in the Second Contract. It appears that, with respect to the First Contract, Slusher initially paid $60,000 of the $110,000 amount owed to Michiana, in what was characterized as a down payment. When Michiana and Cooreman signed their agreement two days later, Michiana paid $60,000 of the $90,000 contract amount.
Sometime thereafter, Slusher sought to begin logging on Cooreman's land, but Cooreman refused to allow it.2 On June 16, 2000, Greg Breneman delivered to Slusher a check for $100,000, which was apparently intended to compensate Slusher for damages suffered as a result of his inability to perform logging activities on Cooreman's land. The check was drawn on Greg and Romana Breneman's personal checking account and bore Greg's signature. The drawee bank dishonored the check due to insufficient funds.
It is at this point that Ron Breneman became involved, although the parties disagree about how his involvement was initiated and to what extent he became involved. Both questions are relevant to the issues before us. According to Appellant, he was contacted by Don Harper, a mutual friend of all of the principals involved. Harper asked Appellant to help resolve the matter between Greg Breneman and Slusher. According to Slusher, Appellant contacted him and asked to meet and discuss the problem. Regardless of how it came about, it is undisputed that Appellant and Slusher met at a truck stop in Rochester, Indiana in January or February of 2001 in order to discuss the situation. Each party remembers the events of that meeting differently.
According to Slusher, Appellant gave his personal guarantee that if Slusher refrained from filing a lawsuit against Greg Breneman and Michiana within the week, Appellant would make sure that Slusher was paid in full within two weeks. Slusher asked whether Appellant was giving his personal guarantee and Appellant responded, "I personally guarantee that you will get paid." Appellant's Appendix at 35. Appellant, on the other hand, denied Slusher's allegation that he gave his personal guarantee. In fact, he claims to have told Slusher that he "would not sell any of his property, borrow any money, or utilize any of his assets to pay his (Greg Breneman's) debt." Id. at 107.
According to Slusher, he relied upon Appellant's alleged assurance and did not file suit against Greg Breneman or Michiana. At the time that Appellant and Slusher met in the Rochester Truck Stop, Greg Breneman apparently owned certain assets that could have been used to satisfy some or all of the debt to Slusher. Those assets were liquidated at some point between the time Slusher agreed to forestall the filing of a lawsuit and the time that he filed suit about eight weeks later.
On April 4, 2001, Slusher filed suit against Michiana, Cooreman Real Estate Group, Inc., Steve Cooreman, Greg Breneman, Romana Breneman, and Ron Breneman. The only allegations in the complaint that are relevant to the instant appeal are those against Appellant, Ron Breneman. In Count IV of the complaint, Slusher alleged that Appellant personally guaranteed the debt Greg Breneman incurred on the First Contract. Slusher further alleged that he relied on that guarantee in delaying the filing of a lawsuit, and that such was done to his detriment because Greg Breneman was able to liquidate and dispose of his assets before Slusher could file suit to reach them in satisfaction of the debt. Thereafter, Slusher sought to serve all of the named defendants with a copy of the complaint and summons. Because it is critical to the issues before us, we reproduce below relevant portions of an affidavit submitted by Jim Klemczewski, who was hired by Slusher to serve Appellant with a copy of the complaint.
Appellant's Appendix at 119-21. In view of the difficulties encountered in getting personal service on the Appellant, on June 14, 2001, Slusher filed a Praecipe for Summons by Publication, which stated:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that you are a party to the above captioned cause of action where in a Complaint was filed on April 4, 2001 in this Court. Unless you respond within thirty (30) days after the last notice of this action is published, a judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in this complaint.
Id. at 80. As a result of the published notice, Greg Breneman contacted Slusher's attorney, Donald G. Blackmond, Jr.,3 and the two arranged a day and time to meet. On the morning of the day they were supposed to meet, Greg Breneman called to inform Blackmond that he would have to reschedule the meeting. They agreed to meet the next week. Greg did not show up for the rescheduled meeting, nor did he call to explain his absence. Blackmond sent a letter to Greg stating that Greg had failed to make a good-faith effort to resolve the situation and stressing the need to do so.
On July 17, 2001, Blackmond sent a letter to Greg and Romana Breneman, in care of Greg's mother. That letter contained the following: Id. at 24. Soon thereafter, Appellant called Blackmond and arranged to meet with him at Blackmond's office. Blackmond described that meeting, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PHI, Inc. v. Apical Indus.
...LLC, 2011 WL 6141053 at*4. 97. See discussion infra at pages 6-10. 98. La. Civ. Code arts. 2531, 2545. 99. Breneman v. Slusher, 768 N.E.2d 451, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002); Ram Products Co., Inc. v. Chauncey, 967 F.Supp. 1071, 1081 (N.D. Ind. 1997). 100. See Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.......
-
Indiana-American Water v. Utility Consumer
...Appellant's Br. at 24. Not only has IAWC waived this argument by presenting it for the first time on appeal, see Breneman v. Slusher, 768 N.E.2d 451, 463 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied, but it has also failed to cite a specific standard to support its 8. We must decline IAWC's request to ......
-
Graveline v. Peyovich
...occurs when the judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts andinferences supporting the judgment. Breneman v. Slusher, 768 N.E.2d 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. When reviewing the trial court's judgment, we will not reweigh the evidence. Gipson v. Gipson, 644 N.......
-
Mathioudakis v. Conversational Computing Corp.
...with Mr. Mathioudakis were deliberate and were "related to the basis of the claim[s]" against Mr. O'Neil, Breneman v. Slusher, 768 N.E.2d 451, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), exercising personal jurisdiction over Mr. O'Neil comports with due process here. C. Traditional Notions of Fair Play and S......