Slater v. Stoffel

• Decision Date: 16 June 1969
• Docket Number: Nos. 668,No. 2,s. 668,2
• Citation: 144 Ind.App. 672,248 N.E.2d 378
• Parties: Robert SLATER, George Slater, Appellants, v. Mark E. STOFFEL, Administrator of the Estate of Bernard J. Stoffel, Deceased, the Community State Bank, Huntington, Indiana, Administrator of the Estate of Donald H. Stoffel, Deceased, Appellees. A 101, 668 A 102
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 378

248 N.E.2d 378

144 Ind.App. 672

Robert SLATER, George Slater, Appellants, v. Mark E. STOFFEL, Administrator of the Estate of Bernard J Stoffel, Deceased, the Community State Bank Huntington, Indiana, Administrator of the Estate of Donald H Stoffel, Deceased, Appellees.

Nos. 668 A 101, 668 A 102.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

June 16, 1969.

J. Michael O'Hara, Robert L. Thompson, Jr., Fort Wayne, for appellants. Barrett, Barrett, & McNagny, Fort Wayne Byron C. Kennedy, Rockhill, Vanderveer, Kennedy & Pinnick, Warsaw, of counsel.

Thomas W. Yoder, Livingston, Dildine, Haynie & Yoder, Fort Wayne, for appellees.

PFAFF, Chief Justice.

On June 6, 1959, an automobile driven by appellant, George Slater, a resident of Georgia, and containing a passenger, his son, appellant, Robert Slater, collided with a vehicle being operated by either Bernard J. Stoffel or Donald H. Stoffel, both of whom were killed in the collision.

On December 2, 1959, appellants filed actions for damages in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana naming the personal representatives of the deceased individuals as defendants. The District Court suit resulted in a verdict for appellants (Slater v. Stoffel (1962), 206 F.Supp. 534), but that decision was reversed in favor of appellees in an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Slater v. Stoffel (CCA 7th, 1963), 313 F.2d 175. The issue in that appeal was whether the plaintiffs could maintain their actions in the United States District Court without first complying with Acts 1953, ch. 112, §§ 1401 and 1402, p. 295, §§ 7--801 and 7--802, Burns' 1953 Repl.

The original issue disposed of before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana was the claim of the defendants that the District Court did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter because jurisdiction was vested in the Huntington Circuit Court and, further, that the statute of limitations barred the actions because the plaintiffs failed to file their claims as required by §§ 7--801 and 7--802, supra, which the defendants alleged are not merely acts of limitation but constitute the denial of a right of action and impose conditions precedent.

The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motions to strike these affirmative defenses and granted the defendants immediate leave to appeal. The appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals resulted in a reversal of the order granting the motion to strike for the reason that, in the opinion of the Court, compliance with §§ 7--801 and 7--802, supra, constituted conditions precedent to the enforcement of plaintiffs' actions and, therefore, the motion to strike was improperly granted in light of the fact that neither plaintiff filed a claim, together with the affidavit required by statute, against the estate of either decedent pursuant to §§ 7--801 and 7--802, supra, even though each plaintiff did file a complaint in the United States District Court within the six-month statutory period prescribed by § 7--801(a).

The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari, 375 U.S. 818, 84 S.Ct. 54, 11 L.Ed.2d 53 (1963), and thereafter the cause was remanded to the District Court, which entered judgment for the defendants-appellees on the theory that plaintiffs-appellants' claims were barred for failure to file a claim with the court against the decedents' estates within the six-month statutory period provided in §§ 7--801 and 7--802, supra.

Each appellant then instituted an action in the Huntington Circuit Court for $100,000.00 in damages.

Subsequent to joinder of the issues and a demurrer to the complaints, said demurrers were sustained and the appellants refused to plead over. Appellants' motion for new trial was overruled and an appeal was then taken to this court. This court reversed the judgment of the Huntington Circuit Court in Slater v. Stoffel (1966), Ind.App., 221 N.E.2d 688, and held that the appellants could bring their tort actions against appellees under § 7--801(f) instead of filing a claim against the estate within six months after the first published notice to creditors, and further held that the provisions of § 7--801(f) could, because of their procedural nature, be applied retroactively, thereby allowing claimants the relief sought. This court stated that the Federal court erred in not providing for retroactive application of the statute and that § 7--801(f) applied retroactively was intended to remove the conditions precedent in tort actions, which required the filing of claims within six months after notice to creditors. This court stated at page 693 of 221 N.E.2d:

'In the absence of express language to the contrary an amendatory act ordinarily is construed as prospective and not as retroactive. Cummins v. Pence et al. (1910), 174 Ind. 115, 91 N.E. 529.

'In the event the new legislation does not impair an existing right or deny a remedy for its enforcement, but merely modifies the proceedings, it applies to all cases pending and subsequent to its enactment. Kingan & Company, Limited v. Ossam (1920), 75 Ind.App. 548, 121 N.E. 289.

'The federal court's error was compounded by the trial court when it sustained the demurrers to appellants' complaint and overruled their motion for a new trial.

'We summarily reiterate that appellants' cause of action survived the death of the appellees and was tolled by the commencement of this action in the federal district court and again in the trial court. The 1961 amendment to Section 7--801 by adding subsection (f) thereto is a procedural requirement to be applied in any action pending in the courts at the time of its passage. It should have been so applied in the case at bar. Failure to do so was prejudicial and reversible error on the part of the federal courts and trial court. It is our opinion that the trial court erred in overruling appellants' motion for a new trial; and the judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed with instructions to sustain appellants' motion for a new trial.'

Pursuant to remand and trial on the merits, the venue of these causes was changed to Whitley County and then to Kosciusko County. In the Kosciusko Circuit Court the defendants-appellees' motion for summary judgment was granted on the grounds that the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit barred further proceedings in Indiana actions under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

The appellants contend that the trial court's action was based upon the previously stated doctrines. However, appellees contend that the judgment was not founded on res judicata or collateral estoppel, and assert that their demurrer was based upon appellants' failure to allege compliance with §§ 7--801 and 7--802, supra, therefore failing to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that said demurrer was sustained on these grounds.

Appellees assert that no question of res judicata was presented in the prior appeal to this court and that res judicata became applicable to their situation only upon the filing of appellees' motion to amend and correct the prior defective judgment in the United States District Court for the Northern Division of Indiana. The judgment entered was allegedly not strictly in accordance with the order of the court and on July 13, 1967, it was corrected nunc pro tunc, to be effective as of November 20, 1963. No appeal was taken from these judgments in actions identical to those pending in the Huntington Circuit Court.

Appellees contend that these new judgments are the basis of the motions for summary judgment because of the doctrine of res judicata.

Appellants argue that in sustaining appellees' motions for summary judgment the Kosciusko Circuit Court contravened a ruling precedent of this court established in the prior appeal to this court under the same caption as the one herein. This argument is based on the alleged fact that this court had previously determined the effect of the Federal Court judgment and that the exact same issue was presented by appellees' motions. In effect, it is argued that our prior opinion became the law of the case and that the granting of summary judgment reverses our prior decision and is therefore reversible error and contrary to law.

Appellees filed their motion to dismiss or affirm for reasons which do not go to the jurisdiction of this court. The motion to dismiss was overruled and the motion to affirm, based upon alleged deficiencies in appellants' brief, held in abeyance pending the determination of the causes. We believe that most, if not all, of the documents not summarized in appellants' brief would have been surplusage if included. Appellants' brief indicates a good-faith effort to comply with the rules of the Supreme Court and there has been at least substantial compliance so that this court is able to understand the issues and points raised. The motion to affirm because of alleged defects in appellants' brief is overruled.

Both appellants and appellees have at one time or another taken the position that the effect of the Federal court judgment as a defense to the State court proceedings was before this court on the first appeal, although appellees now claim that it was not.

Our decision in the first appeal to this court has become the law of this case, and it is immaterial at this time as to whether such decision was right or wrong. 3 Wiltrout Ind.Civ.Proc. § 2791, p. 498; Egbert v. Egbert (1950), 120 Ind.App. 670, 95 N.E.2d 637. It therefore becomes necessary to ascertain just what was presented for decision and decided. Egbert v. Egbert (1956), 235 Ind. 405, 132 N.e.2d 910.

At the time of the prior appeals to this court appellees had filed their demurrers to the complaints based upon the sole statutory ground that they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. No answers had been filed to the complaints, either...