Stocker v. Cataldi
| Decision Date | 19 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 45A03-8708-CV-225,45A03-8708-CV-225 |
| Citation | 521 N.E.2d 716 |
| Parties | Sandra STOCKER and Wenzell Stocker, Appellants, v. R.J. CATALDI, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
R. Cordell Funk, Funk & Foster, Hammond, for appellants.
Kenneth D. Reed, Abrahamson, Reed & Adley, Hammond, for appellee.
Sandra and Wenzell Stocker are appealing the Lake County Superior Court's dismissal of their "Amended Complaint for Proceedings Supplemental." This case has a relatively intricate procedural history; however, a short recitation will facilitate understanding the present appeal.
The Stockers initially filed their personal injury action in Porter Superior Court, naming Michael Cataldi, a minor, and his, then-divorced, parents, Sharon Cataldi and R.J. Cataldi as defendants. Very generally, the Stockers' suit involved personal injuries suffered by Sandra Stocker from an auto accident with Michael Cataldi. At the time of the accident, Michael was driving a car owned by his mother. Before trial Sharon and R.J. individually moved for and were separately granted summary judgments on the issue of their respective liabilities.
The Stockers, in turn, appealed these summary judgments. This Court, in Stocker v. Cataldi (1985), Ind.App., 483 N.E.2d 461, reh. den. (1986), Ind.App., 489 N.E.2d 144 affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Sharon Cataldi, but reversed the finding of no liability as to the father, R.J. Cataldi. While this appeal was pending, the Stockers elected to proceed with their claim against Michael Cataldi in Porter Superior Court. This resulted in the Stockers recovering a cumulative judgment of $205,000.00. Michael's insurance carrier paid its policy limits of $100,000.00.
Next, the Stockers, on March 3, 1986, in Lake Superior Court, filed a "Complaint for Proceeding Supplemental" naming Michael Cataldi and "Cataldi's Restaurant" which was allegedly Michael's place of employment. This resulted in a garnishment order dated March 25, 1986. Nearly a year later, on February 23, 1987, also in Lake Superior Court, the "Amended Complaint for Proceeding Supplemental" added R.J. Cataldi as a garnishee defendant. Ultimately, on March 18, 1987, R.J. Cataldi moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The trial court, after oral arguments, granted the motion to dismiss for the reason that "no judgment has been entered against R.J. Cataldi." From this decision, the instant appeal ensued.
A review of the relevant authorities demonstrates that the court properly dismissed the Stockers' amended complaint, although for reasons different than those stated. This Court is permitted to adopt alternative reasoning, since, in a case where a trial court makes findings, sua sponte, on some, but not all, issues, then issues not addressed in the findings are governed by the general verdict. In reviewing issues governed by a general verdict, the appellate court is free to affirm on any legal theory supported by the evidence. See Master Abrasives Corp. v. Williams (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1196.
The use of legal process to enforce a judgment is generally governed by Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 69. As...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aguilar v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
...If it were successful, the dismissal would have been without prejudice, and would have carried no preclusive effect. Stocker v. Cataldi, 521 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). The second option was to do what it did: manufacture error by invoking removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) and seek ......
-
American Economy Ins. Co. v. Felts
...and is not a determination on the merits, we further conclude that the dismissal should be without prejudice."); Stocker v. Cataldi, 521 N.E.2d 716, 718 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) ("[I]t is clear that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without CONCLUSION In sum, we conclude that the trial court......
-
American Refractories v. Combustion Controls
...subject matter of the principal cause of action. Hervey v. Farms, Inc., 252 Ark. 881, 481 S.W.2d 348, 349 (1972); Stocker v. Cataldi, 521 N.E.2d 716, 717-18 (Ind.App. 1988). See also Equifax, Inc. v. Luster, 463 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Ark.1978), aff'd, 604 F.2d 31 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 44......
-
Pompey v. Pryner
...and is not a determination on the merits, we further conclude that the dismissal should be without prejudice. Cf. Stocker v. Cataldi, 521 N.E.2d 716, 718 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) ("it is clear that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice"); Cha v. Warnick, 455 N.E.2d 1165 (Ind.Ct......