Stuard v. Jackson & Wickliff Auctioneers, Inc., No. 29A02-9603-CV-145

Docket NºNo. 29A02-9603-CV-145
Citation670 N.E.2d 953
Case DateOctober 02, 1996
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 953

670 N.E.2d 953
Patrick STUARD, Appellant-Garnishee Defendant,
v.
JACKSON & WICKLIFF AUCTIONEERS, INC., Appellee-Plaintiff,
Roy Stuard, Defendant Below.
No. 29A02-9603-CV-145.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Oct. 2, 1996.

Gordon D. Byers, Noblesville, for Appellant-Garnishee Defendant.

John R. Price, John R. Price & Associates, Indianapolis, G. Michael Loveall, Loveall & Woods Franklin, for Appellee-Plaintiff.

Page 954

OPINION

ROBERTSON, Judge.

Patrick Stuard brings this interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss allegations against him in proceedings supplemental. He claims that the county of preferred venue is Marion County, Indiana, not Hamilton County, Indiana. He contends that the trial court should have granted his motion and his request to transfer his case to Marion County. We affirm.

Jackson & Wickliff Auctioneers, Inc., filed a complaint for money damages against Stuard's father in Hamilton County, Indiana. The elder Stuard had successfully bid on over $12,000 worth of merchandise at an auction in Hamilton County but had not paid for it. The case resulted in a money judgment. Stuard was not a party to the case.

After the entry of judgment, Stuard's father transferred certain real and personal property to Stuard. In proceedings supplemental to execution, the Auctioneers filed a petition to set aside the transfers under Ind.Code 32-2-7, as Stuard and his father had entered into those transactions in order to defraud a judgment creditor, namely, the Auctioneers. In response, Stuard filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings because Hamilton County was not the county of preferred venue. Inasmuch as the property which was the subject of the transfer was in Marion County and Stuard resided in Marion County, Stuard claimed that Marion County had preferred venue in the proceedings. The trial court denied the motion, and Stuard appeals.

Stuard purports to bring this interlocutory appeal under Ind.Appellate Rule 4(B)(5), for transferring or refusing to transfer a case pursuant to Trial Rule 75. The Auctioneers note that such a procedure may be questionable but then purposefully do not proceed, in substance, to question it. Because Stuard has made an argument which, on its face, addresses an issue related to venue, we will address the issue on its merits.

Stuard contends that, after the Auctioneers had failed to satisfy the judgment against his father, the Auctioneers pursued new and separate remedies, under Indiana's version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, against him. Stuard claims that, with its new remedies, the Auctioneers injected, in effect, a new cause of action into the case. Stuard also notes that he was not a party to the case against his father. In light of the new action against a new defendant, Stuard claims that the preferred venue rules required the transfer of the case to Marion county. The Auctioneers claim, in effect, that the proceedings were merely supplemental to the case against Stuard's father and that they properly remained with the court which heard the original action.

We first note that the trial court has broad discretion in conducting proceedings supplemental. Kirk v. Monroe County Tire, 585 N.E.2d 1366 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). Proceedings supplemental, pursuant to Ind.Trial Rule 69, are a means used to remedy a failure by a defendant to pay a money judgment. Linton v. Linton, 166 Ind.App. 409, 339 N.E.2d 96 (1975).

Notwithstanding any other statute to the contrary, proceedings supplemental to execution may be enforced by verified motion or with affidavits in the court where the judgment is rendered alleging generally:

* * * * * *

(4) if any person is named as garnishee, that garnishee has or will have specified or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Grubnich v. Renner, No. 45A05-0011-CV-500.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 10 Abril 2001
    ...merits. 3. We view the Renners' motion as a motion for proceedings supplemental. See Stuard v. Jackson & Wickliff Auctioneers, Inc., 670 N.E.2d 953, 954 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("Proceedings supplemental, pursuant to Ind.Trial Rule 69, are a means used to remedy a failure by a defendant ......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Estep, No. 03A01-0401-CV-30.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 24 Noviembre 2004
    ...To review the significant points, proceedings supplemental are equitable in nature. Stuard v. Jackson & Wickliff Auctioneers, Inc., 670 N.E.2d 953 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). Such actions are merely continuations of an action that culminated in the imposition of a judgment for money damages. The......
  • Branham v. Varble, No. 62A04-1004-SC-256.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 10 Marzo 2011
    ...not subject to levy and sale at law and to set aside fraudulent conveyances." Stuard v. Jackson & Wickliff Auctioneers, Inc., 670 N.E.2d 953, 955 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). The Branhams point out that after the judgment was entered in this case, they appeared before the court on four separ......
  • Branham v. Varble, No. 62A04-1004-SC-256
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 28 Octubre 2010
    ...not subject to levy and sale at law and to set aside fraudulent conveyances." Stuard v. Jackson & Wickliff Auctioneers, Inc., 670 N.E.2d 953, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). The Branhams point out that after the judgment was entered in this case, they appeared before the court on four se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Grubnich v. Renner, No. 45A05-0011-CV-500.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 10 Abril 2001
    ...merits. 3. We view the Renners' motion as a motion for proceedings supplemental. See Stuard v. Jackson & Wickliff Auctioneers, Inc., 670 N.E.2d 953, 954 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("Proceedings supplemental, pursuant to Ind.Trial Rule 69, are a means used to remedy a failure by a defendant ......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Estep, No. 03A01-0401-CV-30.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 24 Noviembre 2004
    ...To review the significant points, proceedings supplemental are equitable in nature. Stuard v. Jackson & Wickliff Auctioneers, Inc., 670 N.E.2d 953 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). Such actions are merely continuations of an action that culminated in the imposition of a judgment for money damages. The......
  • Branham v. Varble, No. 62A04-1004-SC-256.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 10 Marzo 2011
    ...not subject to levy and sale at law and to set aside fraudulent conveyances." Stuard v. Jackson & Wickliff Auctioneers, Inc., 670 N.E.2d 953, 955 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). The Branhams point out that after the judgment was entered in this case, they appeared before the court on four separ......
  • Branham v. Varble, No. 62A04-1004-SC-256
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 28 Octubre 2010
    ...not subject to levy and sale at law and to set aside fraudulent conveyances." Stuard v. Jackson & Wickliff Auctioneers, Inc., 670 N.E.2d 953, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). The Branhams point out that after the judgment was entered in this case, they appeared before the court on four se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT