Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

Patrick A. Schuster

Patrick A. Schuster & Associates PC

Crown Point, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Harjinder Singh, Navdeep Gill, 

Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3, 

SMHR Holdings, LLC,

Appellants-Plaintiff/CounterDefendant/Third-Party Defendants,

v.

SBJ Petroleum No. 1, LLC,

SBJ Petroleum No. 3, LLC,

Michael A. Jarard,

Corinth Bishop,

Appellees-Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs

July 22, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-PL-540

Appeal from the 

Lake Superior Court

The Honorable 

Bruce D. Parent, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

45D11-1210-PL-79

Vaidik, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Harjinder Singh, Navdeep Gill, Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3, and SMHR 

Holdings, LLC (“Appellants”) appeal from a judgment in favor of Michael A. 

Jarard and Corinth Bishop (“Appellees”).

1 Appellants argue that the trial court

erred by denying their Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Motion to 

Recover Funds Turned Over After the Parties’ Settlement. We reverse and 

remand for further proceedings.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The lawsuit underlying this appeal was filed in October 2012. The trial court 

held a bench trial in February 2016 and entered final judgment on December 

15, 2016. Among other things, the court ordered Appellants to pay $169,084 to 

Bishop and $5,000 to Jarard. It also ordered Singh to pay Bishop $21,000 “for 

the conversion of Bishop’s firearms.” Appellants’ App. Vol. II p. 43.

[3] Appellants appealed. See Case No. 45A03-1703-PL-511. They filed their brief in 

June 2017. With extensions of time, Appellees’ brief was due on September 14, 

2017. On that day, the parties filed a joint Notice of Settlement in the trial court 

1

SBJ Petroleum No. 1, LLC, and SBJ Petroleum No. 3, LLC, were parties in the trial court and are 

identified as appellees on appeal. However, they were not awarded anything or ordered to do anything in the 

trial court’s judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 3 of 7

and then submitted a copy to this Court. The notice, which was signed by all 

the parties, provided:

[The parties] hereby notify the Court that the above case has been 

settled pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties.

1. The parties acknowledge that attempts have been made 

to settle through counsel to no avail.

2. The parties have agreed to withdraw their appeals and 

release each other mutually pursuant to that Agreement.

Id. at 45.

2 A week later, based on the notice, this Court issued an order 

dismissing Appellants’ appeal with prejudice.

[4] But that did not conclude the litigation. Back in the trial court, in February 

2018, Appellants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and a 

Motion to Recover Funds Turned Over After the Parties’ Settlement. They 

alleged that Bishop had continued to attempt to collect on the original judgment 

notwithstanding the September 2017 settlement agreement and that he had 

received at least $4,298.59. They asked the court to (1) enforce the settlement 

agreement and (2) order Bishop to return all funds he received after the 

settlement. The trial court held a hearing on the motions and then, in 

November 2018, issued an order denying the motion to recover funds and 

2 The use of the plural “appeals” was an error. The only appeal filed after the original judgment was that filed 

by Appellants.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 4 of 7

giving the parties thirty days to “complete the terms of the settlement 

agreement.” Id. at 58. Specifically, the court explained:

1. On September 14, 2017, a Notice of Settlement was filed with 

the Court which indicated that the parties had entered into a 

settlement agreement. The terms of the settlement agreement

were not included in that notice.

2. The parties shall have time to and including December 14, 

2018, within which to complete the terms of the settlement 

agreement. Failure to do so will result in the original judgment 

herein being reinstated.

Id.

[5] The parties made no further settlement filings in the trial court. Instead, on 

December 12, 2018, Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3 (one of the four Appellants 

here and in the first appeal) filed a notice of appeal. See Case No. 18A-PL-2964.

The notice indicated that the appeal was from a final judgment rather than an 

interlocutory order. Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3 filed its brief on March 1, 

2019, arguing that the parties “reached an oral settlement agreement” in 

September 2017, that the terms of the agreement were “reduced to writing” in 

the Notice of Settlement, and that the trial court erred by concluding that “[t]he 

terms of the settlement agreement were not included in that notice” and

ordering the parties to “complete” the terms of the agreement. Corrected 

Appellant’s Brief, No. 18A-PL-2964 (Mar. 1, 2019). Appellees did not file a brief

or otherwise appear in the appeal. In a memorandum decision issued on June 

25, 2019, this Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 5 of 7

concluding that the trial court’s November 2018 order was not a final judgment

and noting that Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3 had not received permission to 

pursue an interlocutory appeal. Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3 v. SBJ Petroleum No. 

1, LLC, No. 18A-PL-2964 (June 25, 2019).

[6] The parties returned to the trial court. Based on this Court’s conclusion that the

November 2018 order did not constitute a final judgment, Appellants asked the 

trial court to certify the order for interlocutory appeal. In December 2019, the 

trial court issued its Order on Motion to Certify. The court did not certify the

November 2018 order for interlocutory appeal. Instead, it concluded that the 

December 15, 2016 judgment “became this Court’s order” when “the parties 

failed to enter a settlement agreement by the appointed date of December 14, 

2018,” as directed in the November 2018 order. Order on Motion to Certify, No. 

45D11-1210-PL-79 (Dec. 23, 2019). As such, the court reaffirmed the original 

orders for Appellants to pay $169,084 to Bishop and $5,000 to Jarard and for 

Singh to pay Bishop $21,000 for the conversion of Bishop’s firearms.

[7] Appellants now appeal once again.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Appellants renew their argument that the September 2017 Notice of Settlement

was “the final settlement agreement between the parties,” Appellants’ Br. p. 12,

and that the trial court erred by concluding that “[t]he terms of the settlement 

agreement were not included in that notice.” They contend that the trial court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 6 of 7

should have granted their Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and 

ordered Appellees to cease all efforts to collect on the original December 2016 

judgment. They also argue that the court should have granted their Motion to 

Recover Funds Turned Over After the Parties’ Settlement.

[9] Appellees have again chosen not to file a brief. When an appellee makes that 

choice, 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.

[10] Under that relaxed standard, we conclude that reversal is appropriate. The 

Notice of Settlement, signed by all the parties, provided:

[The parties] hereby notify the Court that the above case has been 

settled pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties.

1. The parties acknowledge that attempts have been made 

to settle through counsel to no avail.

2. The parties have agreed to withdraw their appeals and 

release each other mutually pursuant to that Agreement. 

Appellants’ App. Vol. II p. 45. To be sure, this is barebones language. However, 

it contains three terms that indicate a full and final settlement: (1) “the above 

case has been has been settled pursuant to a settlement agreement between the 

parties”; (2) “[t]he parties have agreed to withdraw their appeals”; and (3) the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-540 | July 22, 2020 Page 7 of 7

parties “release each other mutually pursuant to that Agreement.” Based on the 

notice, we dismissed Appellants’ original appeal—the only appeal pending at 

the time—with prejudice.

[11] During the hearing on Appellants’ motion to enforce and motion to recover 

funds, counsel for Appellees argued that the Notice of Settlement indicated only

that “the parties were willing to leave the appeals” and that the release 

language—“release each other mutually pursuant to that Agreement”—was 

limited to Appellants’ appeal. Tr. p. 7. But Appellants’ agreement to 

“withdraw” their appeal was just one part of the notice. The notice, which was 

a trial-court filing that was only later submitted to this Court, indicated that the 

parties had agreed to settle “the above case,” i.e., the trial-court case. And the 

release provision included no language limiting it to Appellants’ appeal.

[12] In short, the Notice of Settlement provided that the parties had reached a 

complete settlement of their dispute and that they had agreed to “release each 

other mutually” from all claims and obligations. Therefore, we reverse the trial 

court’s order reaffirming the original judgment and remand this matter with 

instructions to vacate that judgment and grant Appellants’ Motion to Enforce 

Settlement Agreement and Motion to Recover Funds Turned Over After the 

Parties’ Settlement.

[13] Reversed and remanded.

May, J., and Robb, J., concur.