The Court of Appeals of Indiana has affirmed the denial of a debtor’s motion to set aside a default judgment, holding that a bank’s improper freeze of his account did not make the underlying judgment unenforceable.
The background: The dispute traces back to a consumer loan that a debt buyer later acquired and sued to collect.
- In April 2011, the defendant took out a loan from a bank, and the debt was later assigned to the plaintiff, a debt buyer.
- The plaintiff filed suit in March 2018, alleging the defendant owed a past due balance of $891.90. The same day, the clerk issued a summons, and the sheriff left a copy of the summons and complaint at the defendant’s Indianapolis address and mailed a second copy there.
- The defendant never answered. In July 2018, the court entered a default judgment for $891.90 plus 8% annual interest.
- More than seven years later, in August 2025, the defendant moved for relief from judgment, arguing it was void for lack of personal jurisdiction because he had “already moved from the service address.” He attached a document showing a Carmel address he held from June 2018 to April 2021.
- After the plaintiff began garnishment proceedings, the defendant’s bank froze $1,462.64 from his savings account. He moved for emergency release of the funds, noting that no writ of garnishment or final garnishment order had been entered. The trial court agreed the freeze lacked any supporting order and released the funds, then denied his motion for relief from the underlying judgment.
The ruling: The Appeals Court affirmed, noting that the defendant, who was representing himself, had not carried his burden and walked through why the appeal failed.
- The defendant’s pro se status did not lower the bar; the judge noted that self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must accept the consequences of ignoring procedural rules.
- In his opening brief, the defendant abandoned the jurisdiction argument entirely, never claiming he failed to receive notice. Instead, he contended that because the court had released his frozen funds for lack of a garnishment order, the default judgment itself was improper. He argued the denial “preserved a judgment that had already been proven incapable of lawful enforcement.”
- The Appeals Court rejected that leap. While acknowledging the funds were garnished without a proper order, the court found the defendant pointed to no authority showing a default judgment becomes invalid simply because a bank later and improperly withholds money.
- The court held the defendant waived the issue for failing to make a cogent argument. Even setting waiver aside, the court observed that a move to Carmel in June 2018 could not have denied the defendant notice when the sheriff had served the Indianapolis address nearly three months earlier.
