Miller's Health Sys. v. Garinger

Miller's Health Systems, Inc. Appellant-Defendant, v. Chandra L. Garinger, Appellee-Plaintiff

No. 21A-CC-2741

Court of Appeals of Indiana

April 20, 2022

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

Appeal from the Grant Superior Court The Honorable Jason D McVicker, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 27D03-2109-CC-634

Attorneys for Appellant Stephen R. Donham Jordan T. Quillen Thrasher Buschmann & Voelkel, P.C.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vaidik, Judge.

Case Summary

[¶1] Miller's Health Systems, Inc., appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for default judgment in its action against Chandra L. Garinger to foreclose a lien. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶2] In May 2021, Miller's filed suit against Garinger in Grant County, alleging: (1) Miller's manages a nursing home in Marion; (2) Garinger's significant other is a resident of the nursing home; (3) Garinger handles her significant other's financial affairs and signed an admission agreement as his "Legal Representative" making her liable for his monthly bill; and (4) Garinger was improperly using a portion of her significant other's income and had failed to pay his bill for many months. Complaint, Cause No. 27D03-2105-CC-305. Garinger did not answer the complaint, and in June 2021 Miller's was awarded a default judgment for $15, 963.68 plus court costs and post-judgment interest.

[¶3] In September 2021, Miller's initiated this second action against Garinger by filing a "Complaint to Foreclose Judicial Lien." Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 6-8. Miller's alleged: (1) pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-55-9-2, the June 2021 judgment constitutes a lien against a parcel of real estate Garinger owns in Grant County; (2) the June 2021 judgment is unsatisfied; and (3) Miller's "is entitled to foreclosure of its interest and the interests of Garinger in the Real Estate[.]" Id. at 7. Miller's asked the trial court to:

issue an Order and Judgment of Foreclosure; order that the interests of Garinger be foreclosed and forever barred; order that the Real Estate be sold by the Sheriff of Grant County, Indiana, subject to the laws of the State of Indiana; order that the proceeds of the sale be applied in accordance with the decree of foreclosure rendered in this proceeding; grant an award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs incurred in pursuing this action; order the removal of the occupants of the Real Estate and that Miller or the purchaser of the Real Estate by [sic] placed into possession; and grant all other relief deemed just and proper in the premises.

Id. at 7-8.

[¶4] Garinger again failed to answer, and Miller's moved for default judgment of foreclosure. The trial court denied the motion with the following CCS entry: "Court Declines to grant Motion for Default Judgment at this time due to a Default Judgment being entered on cause number 27D03-2105-CC-000305 for the same pleadings." Id. at 4. Miller's filed a motion to reconsider explaining that it is seeking a judgment of foreclosure that would allow it to collect on the June 2021 judgment, not a second judgment that is "duplicative" of the June 2021 judgment. Id. at 58-59. The court denied the motion to reconsider with the following CCS entry: "The Court hereby Denies Plaintiff's request to grant its request for a Decree of Foreclosure by way of Default Judgment[.]" Id. at 4. Finally, Miller's moved for summary judgment, which the court denied with the following CCS entry: "The Court hereby denies Plaintiff's request to grant its request for a Decree of Foreclosure by way of Summary Judgment[.]" Id.

[¶5] Miller's then sought and received permission to bring this interlocutory appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[¶6] Miller's contends the trial court erred by denying its motion for default judgment.^[1] Garinger has not filed a brief. When an appellee does not respond to an appeal, we will not undertake the burden of developing an argument on their behalf. Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 1068 (Ind. 2006). Rather, we will reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant's brief presents a case of prima facie error. Id. In this context, "prima facie error" means error "at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it." Id. Under that relaxed standard, we conclude that reversal is appropriate.

[¶7] In denying the motion for default judgment, the trial court indicated it believed Miller's is seeking a judgment that would be duplicative of the original June 2021 judgment. Miller's then filed a motion to reconsider explaining that it is simply seeking a judgment of foreclosure that would allow it to collect on the June 2021 judgment. In its CCS entry denying the motion to reconsider, the court stated "The Court hereby Denies Plaintiff's request to grant its request for a Decree of Foreclosure by way of Default Judgment[.]" That entry indicates the court was no longer confused about the nature of the second suit but was nonetheless unwilling to order foreclosure via default judgment. However, the court did not offer a...