Case Title: Quincy Branham & Shannon Branham v. Rodney Varble & Carol Varble

Citation: 

Docket Number: 62S04-1103-SC-139

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2011-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS 
Stephen E. Culley 
Katherine J. Rybak 
Indiana Legal Services, Inc. 
Evansville, Indiana 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES 
Gloria J. Rahman 
Gregory S. Schnarr 
Ferdinand, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
No. 62S04-1103-SC-139 
QUINCY BRANHAM & 
SHANNON BRANHAM, 
Appellants (Plaintiffs below), 
v. 
RODNEY VARBLE & 
CAROL VARBLE, 
Appellees (Defendants below). 
Appeal from the Perry Circuit Court, No. 62C01-0806-SC-00252 
The Honorable Lucy Goffinet 
The Honorable Karen A. Werner, Magistrate 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 62A04-1004-SC-00256 
August 30, 2011 
Shepard, Chief Justice. 
In this case heard on the small claims docket, the trial court conducted proceedings 
supplemental to execution.  It ordered two unrepresented judgment debtors to pay on the 
judgment despite their lack of non-exempt income, and it required the husband to submit five job 
applications per week. 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Aug 30 2011, 1:42 pm
2 
The Court of Appeals affirmed the order to pay but reversed the directive to seek better 
employment.  Branham v. Varble & Varble, 937 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).  We granted 
transfer, 944 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. 2011) (table), vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals. 
 
The trial court heard jointly the present case and another involving most of the same 
parties.  We decide that case today as well.  Branham v. Varble & Chastain, ___ N.E.2d ____ 
(Ind. 2011).  There, we make three rulings.  First, for unrepresented parties 
 in small claims court, 
resort to the generic exemption statute and the Social Security exemptions are not forfeited even 
if the litigants do not know enough to plead them.  Second, a court does not err when it orders a 
party to return for status checks some limited number of times, even if an information of 
contempt has not been filed.  Third, orders to seek employment or to seek better employment are 
not a proper part of a proceeding supplemental. 
 
Applying those rules to the facts in this case leads to the same result.  The orders to pay 
$50 per week and the order to make application for new work are reversed.  The order to return 
for a status check is affirmed. 
Dickson, Sullivan, Rucker, and David, JJ., concur.