Killearn Properties, Inc. v. Lambright
Citation | 176 Ind.App. 684,377 N.E.2d 417 |
Decision Date | 22 June 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 3-1276A285,3-1276A285 |
Parties | KILLEARN PROPERTIES, INC., Killearn Realty, Inc., Killearn Suburban Realty, Inc., J. T. Williams, Jr., Noel F. Shumann, Henry R. Glick, Larry J. Gowan, James M. Clements, and Mallory E. Horne, Appellants (Defendants below), v. Freeman LAMBRIGHT and Betty J. Lambright, Appellees (Plaintiffs below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Paul C. Raver, Sr., James A. Federoff, Fort Wayne, for appellants.
Howard E. Petersen, Richard K. Muntz, Petersen & Muntz, LaGrange, for appellees.
Freeman and Betty Lambright filed a complaint naming as defendants various individuals and corporations, including the appellants (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Killearn"). The complaint alleged that Killearn had participated in a conspiracy to sell the Lambrights real estate in violation of certain state and federal laws.
Killearn filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction. Additionally, Killearn argued that Florida was a more convenient forum and requested the trial court to transfer the cause to that state. Pursuant to Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 4(B)(5), Killearn appeals from a denial of the motion and the request to transfer.
We find no error, and we affirm.
The Lambrights filed their complaint in the LaGrange Circuit Court. Killearn subsequently filed a request for a change of venue pursuant to TR. 76. That motion was granted and the cause was transferred to the Noble Circuit Court. After the transfer, Killearn filed with the Noble Circuit Court a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss alleged a lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion.
A party not otherwise subject to the personal jurisdiction of a court may nonetheless voluntarily submit himself to that court's jurisdiction. When a party either seeks affirmative relief from a court or fails to object in a timely manner to the jurisdiction of a court, he has voluntarily submitted his person to that court. State of Florida ex rel. O'Malley v. Department of Insurance (1973), 155 Ind.App. 168, 291 N.E.2d 907. Having done so, that party will not be allowed thereafter to challenge the court's personal jurisdiction. Harbaugh v. Albertson (1885), 102 Ind. 69, 1 N.E. 298. Where the party has requested affirmative relief, the preclusion from challenging personal jurisdiction is predicated on the theory of estoppel. Robertson v. Smith (1891), 129 Ind. 422, 28 N.E. 857. Where the party has failed to object in a timely manner, the preclusion is predicated on the theory of waiver. Phillips v. Great Lakes Health Congress (1976), Ind.App., 354 N.E.2d 307.
Has a party who has requested a change of venue submitted himself to the court's jurisdiction?
Our Supreme Court addressed that very question in Nesbit v. Long (1871), 37 Ind. 300. There, a defendant who had asked for and had been granted a change of venue subsequently contended that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The court discussed the effect of the request for a change of venue:
We are cognizant of the fact that in Nesbit, the defendant requested a change of venue from the justice, whereas in the case before us Killearn requested a change of venue from the county. However, this distinction does not change the nature of relief sought. Killearn sought affirmative relief from the court, and in doing so, voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. They are now estopped from challenging the court's personal jurisdiction.
Killearn's second contention is that Florida is a more convenient forum, and inasmuch as a trial court possesses the power, pursuant to TR. 4.4(C), to order the cause to be litigated in a more convenient forum, the trial court erred in refusing to order the cause to be litigated there.
TR. 4.4(C) provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Westerby v. Johns-Manville Corp.
... ... Gilbertson, Esquire, for Defendant Eagle-Picher ... Industries, Inc ... Edward Greer, Esquire, and Charles J ... denied, 335 U.S. 828 (1948); Indiana: ... Killearn Properties, Inc. v. Lambright, 176 Ind.App ... 684, 377 N.E.2d 417 ... ...
-
D. L. M. v. V. E. M.
...can also be waived when a party seeks affirmative relief or fails to make a timely objection. Killearn Properties Inc. v. Lambright, (1978) 176 Ind.App. 684, 377 N.E.2d 417. Mere errors of law do not deprive a court of its jurisdiction or open its judgment to collateral attack; such are voi......
-
Anyango v. Rolls–Royce Corp.
...is limited to abuse of discretion. Freemond v. Somma, 611 N.E.2d 684, 690 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (citing Killearn Props., Inc. v. Lambright, 176 Ind.App. 684, 687, 377 N.E.2d 417, 419 (1978)), trans. denied. A trial court abuses its discretion when it “arrives at a conclusion that is clearly aga......
-
Marriage of Hudson, In re
...court's personal jurisdiction by either failing to make a timely objection or by seeking affirmative relief. Killearn Properties, Inc. v. Lambright, (1978) Ind.App., 377 N.E.2d 417. The record, however, discloses Ronald first filed a motion to dismiss under Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Ru......