Harold Howard Farms v. Hoffman, 37A03-9107-CV-216

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: HOFFMAN
• Citation: Harold Howard Farms v. Hoffman, 585 N.E.2d 18 (Ind. App. 1992)
• Decision Date: 21 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. 37A03-9107-CV-216,37A03-9107-CV-216
• Parties: HAROLD HOWARD FARMS, Appellant-Defendant, v. Herman HOFFMAN, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Page 18

585 N.E.2d 18

HAROLD HOWARD FARMS, Appellant-Defendant, v. Herman HOFFMAN, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 37A03-9107-CV-216.

Court of Appeals of Indiana Third District.

Jan. 21, 1992.

Michael D. O'Neall, O'Neall & O'Neall, Remington, for appellant-defendant.

Donald W. Shelmon, Randle & Shelmon, Rensselaer, for appellee-plaintiff.

HOFFMAN, Judge.

Appellant-defendant Harold Howard Farms (Howard) appeals an adverse judgment in favor of appellee-plaintiff Herman Hoffman (Hoffman). Howard conducts a business in Remus, Michigan. Herman Hoffman is a resident of Indiana. Howard raises two issues for review, one of which is dispositive: whether the trial court erred in determining that Indiana courts acquired personal jurisdiction over the appellant.

The facts relevant to the appeal disclose that Howard and Hoffman are each in the business of buying, selling, trading, and breeding horses. Because each had attended and judged horse shows in surrounding states, Howard and Hoffman had an acquaintanceship prior to the incident upon which this suit is based.

Howard advertised breeding services in a national quarter horse journal. On May 25, 1984, Hoffman telephoned Howard to inquire about breeding a mare, Jessica Cody, owned by Hoffman. After further negotiations by telephone, Hoffman telephoned Howard on May 26, 1984 to state that if the terms were acceptable he would deliver Jessica Cody and her nursing foal to Howard.

When Hoffman delivered the mare and the foal to Howard, the two discussed the terms of the agreement they had reached previously through telephone communications. Howard's wife produced a form contract which, after writing special terms on the face of the document, was executed by the parties at Howard's farm in Michigan.

Hoffman informed Howard that contact with Hoffman would be difficult because he was going to be traveling on business. When Howard ascertained that Jessica Cody was in foal, Howard attempted without success to contact Hoffman to inform him and request that Hoffman retrieve Jessica Cody and the foal. Howard then sent written notification to Hoffman informing him to retrieve the horses.

Hoffman contacted Howard upon his return from the business trip. The dispute which is the subject of the lawsuit arose thereafter. Hoffman instituted suit in Indiana on August 22, 1985. In November 1985, Howard filed a motion to dismiss challenging personal jurisdiction. The trial court held a hearing on the motion in December 1985.

The trial court determined that the practices in the business of breeding livestock are unique because breeders do not move their livestock, those desirous of utilizing the breeders' services must deliver and entrust their livestock to the breeders, breeders depend upon advertisements in national publications and breeders often participate in intrastate livestock shows as judges as a manner of advertising and soliciting business. As a consequence, the trial court determined:

"[T]hat in the specialty area of breeding of livestock, that the Defendant's contacts, herein, were sufficient to give Indiana jurisdiction over the issues. That the contract was made in the State of Indiana and that by the Defendant returning phone calls, and entering negotiations pursuant to phone calls, based on representations made at shows and through advertisements in national and regional journals, that he had subjected himself to jurisdiction of the Indiana Courts."

By the time of the trial in December 1990, Hoffman was a resident of Texas. After a trial without the intervention of a jury, a judgment was awarded to Hoffman. This appeal ensued.

A party challenging jurisdiction must establish the challenge by a preponderance of the evidence unless lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint. Alberts v. Mack Trucks, Inc. (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 1268, 1270. Because jurisdiction is presumed in Indiana and need not be alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff's burden to come forward with evidence which would establish jurisdiction does not arise until a challenge by the defendant. Id.

Ind. Trial Rule 4.4(A) includes provisions for finding that nonresidents have submitted to the jurisdiction of Indiana courts. The rule states in pertinent part:

"Acts Serving as a Basis for Jurisdiction. Any person or organization that is a nonresident of this state, a resident of this state who has left the state, or a person whose residence is unkown, submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any action arising from the following acts committed by him or his agent:

(1) doing any business in this state[.]"

T.R. 4.4(A)(1).

Due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit will not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95. Minimum contacts are required to assure that the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the jurisdiction of the forum state. Hanson v. Denckla (1958), 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283.

This Court outlined the factors to be considered when determining whether fair play and substantial justice would be served by a finding that the defendant has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the courts of the forum state:

"(1) The nature and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity of contacts with the state; (3) the relationship between those contacts and the cause of action; (4) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience of the parties.... The first three are the primary factors in determining whether International Shoe standards are met. [Citation omitted.]"

Tietloff v. Lift-A-Loft Corp. (1982), Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 986, 989.

In the present case, the trial court determined that the advertisements, the telephone communications, Howard's business trips to Indiana, and the nature of the horse breeding business established the minimum contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction. An analysis of these circumstances as applied to the foregoing factors is required.

It is undisputed that Howard advertised breeding services in national and Michigan publications. Hoffman incorrectly contends that pursuant to the decision in Woodmar Coin Center, Inc. v. Owen (1983), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 618, 619-621, advertisements in national publications which led to telephone...