The Court of Appeals of Indiana has affirmed the denial of a defendant’s motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by a debt buyer, marking the second time in two months the court has ruled against the same defendant in a dispute with the same plaintiff.
The background: The plaintiff sued the defendant in 2018 to recover an unpaid debt, leaving copies of the complaint and summons at what it believed was the defendant’s home in Indianapolis and mailing copies to the same address by first class mail.
- The defendant did not respond, and the trial court entered a default judgment against him for $2,030.21.
- Over the next several years, the plaintiff filed four motions for proceedings supplemental, three involving the State of Indiana and one involving a bank, but withdrew each after learning the garnishee-defendants had no connection to the defendant.
- A fifth attempt succeeded, and the trial court issued a garnishment order to the defendant’s employer.
- The defendant then moved to stay the garnishment and set aside the default judgment, claiming he never received the complaint and had meritorious defenses. The trial court denied his motions, and he appealed.
- In June, the Appeals Court rejected the defendant’s attempt to void a separate default judgment obtained by the same plaintiff in a different collection case.
The ruling: The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding that the defendant, who represented himself on appeal, failed to demonstrate error even under the more forgiving standard that applied because the plaintiff did not file an appellee’s brief. Under that standard, the defendant needed to show only prima facie error, which the court explained “means at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.”
- The plaintiff’s service methods, leaving copies at the defendant’s dwelling and following up by first class mail, complied with Indiana’s service rules.
- The defendant conceded he had lived at the address but claimed he moved out before service occurred. His own filings undercut that claim: one motion said he moved out before service, while another said he moved out in June 2018, a month after service was made.
- The Appeals Court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff was not diligent because it took “nearly seven years” to obtain a garnishment order, noting the plaintiff repeatedly tried to enforce the judgment and withdrew its earlier attempts only after learning the garnishees had no connection to the defendant. The defendant also never explained how he was prejudiced by the delay.
- The Appeals Court noted the defendant’s appendix omitted key documents, including the plaintiff’s earlier garnishment motions, and took judicial notice of the missing trial court records to decide the appeal.
