Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 1 of 12

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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Kathleen A. DeLaney

Annavieve C. Conklin

DeLaney & DeLaney, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Russell T. Clarke, Jr.

Emswiller Williams Noland & 

Clarke, P.C.

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Larry Martin,

Appellant,

v.

Gino Burelli,

Appellee.

May 29, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-MI-25

Appeal from the Porter Superior 

Court

The Honorable Jeffrey W. Clymer, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

64D02-1507-MI-6414

Barnes, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Larry Martin appeals the trial court’s grant of a motion for preliminary 

injunction to Gino Burelli. We remand.
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 2 of 12

Issue

[2] Martin raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly 

granted a motion for preliminary injunction to Burelli.

Facts

[3] Burelli, Dominico Idoni, and Kevin MacKay are owners of a rare Briggs 

Cunningham Corvette that is valued at several million dollars. Burelli and 

Idoni each owned thirty-five percent of the vehicle, and MacKay owned the 

remaining thirty percent. The vehicle is currently located in Indiana.

[4] In June 2009, Martin obtained a judgment in Maryland against Idoni for 

$250,600 plus ten percent interest per annum. In July 2015, Martin filed a 

notice of filing a foreign judgment in Indiana and a praecipe for writ of 

attachment and order for execution of the judgment. Martin alleged that Idoni 

had a thirty-five percent ownership interest in the vehicle that was sufficient to 

satisfy the judgment. The trial court entered a writ of attachment and order for 

execution of the judgment and ordered the Porter County Sheriff’s Department 

to seize the vehicle.

[5] Burelli filed a motion to intervene in the action, which the trial court granted. 

Burelli also filed a motion to vacate the writ of attachment and order for 

execution of judgment. Burelli alleged that he held an insurance policy on the 

vehicle with Zurich Insurance and that a condition of the policy was that the 

vehicle remain in Burelli’s care, custody, and control. Burelli requested that the 

vehicle be returned to his possession to avoid cancellation of the insurance 
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 3 of 12

policy. Burelli also argued that the vehicle should not be sold because Idoni 

owned only a minority interest in the vehicle. After a hearing, the trial court 

ordered that the vehicle be returned to Burelli’s care “during the pendency of 

this action or until further order of the Court.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 79. 

The trial court also found that a lien existed on the vehicle in the amount of 

Martin’s judgment. Finally, the trial court ordered Burelli to provide a report to 

Martin and the court on January 1, 2016, and quarterly after that date regarding 

“[g]ood faith efforts to restore, market and sell such vehicle and report of 

vehicle location.” Id. at 80. The trial court noted that Martin had the right to 

apply for further relief if the vehicle was not sold by August 2017. Burelli filed 

reports in January 2016, April 2016, July 2016, October 2016, January 2017, 

and May 2017. 

[6] On September 18, 2017, Martin filed a verified motion for proceedings 

supplemental. He alleged that, with interest, he was now owed almost 

$430,000 and that Idoni had not satisfied the judgment. He also asserted that 

Burelli had filed late reports, failed to file a July 2017 report, failed to sell the 

vehicle, and failed to satisfy the lien. Burelli responded by filing a “Verified 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction.” Id. at 

145. Burelli asserted in his motion that, in September 2017, Idoni conveyed his 

interest in the vehicle to Burelli to satisfy a debt of more than $1,376,699 and 

that Burelli now controlled seventy percent ownership of the vehicle. Martin 

then filed a petition for contempt and sanctions against Burelli. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 4 of 12

[7] At a hearing on the motions, Burelli testified that he had retained a broker to 

sell the vehicle and that he would like until August 2018 to complete a sale. 

The broker also testified at the hearing. At the end of the hearing, the trial 

court stated:

With respect to finding that the intervenor is in bad faith, the 

Court makes these findings: The Court -- the car is currently in 

the possession of either Top Flight Corvettes or Gino Burelli or 

Harbor. It is currently insured. It’s insured through Zurich’s

policy with Harbor, so, therefore, as long as the car is still within 

Harbor’s possession, it’s part of the overall Zurich floor plan 

policy. One small concern that the Court has, which may 

address premiums with Harbor, is that to some extent perhaps 

the lienholders would be loss payees on this particular car, but I

don’t even know who it’s titled to. It’s titled to someone’s name 

in Florida. But the Court makes these findings: That the car is 

currently in possession of Harbor which is pursuant to the 

August 7, 2015, order and the car is insured. The Court finds 

that there were quarterly reports that were made, although they 

were not made timely. The car is currently -- it appears to be safe

and the car is currently insured. It appears that there’s currently 

a contract -- a brokerage contract with Mr. Goldsborough which 

has a sliding scale. . . . The motion for bad faith and contempt is

denied. The -- what I would like to do is clean up the record in 

such a way that it makes it easiest to sell the car because selling 

the car and getting the most money for the sale of the car benefits

Mr. Goldsborough, benefits Mr. MacKay, benefits Mr. Burelli, 

and whenever it’s sold, benefits the judgment, plaintiff, creditor. 

And the sooner that that happens, the better, and the sooner it 

benefits the judgment of the plaintiff.

To the extent that the Court has heard evidence that says that 

that cloud that exists over the title, I don’t know if there’s 

anything that the Court can do to clean up that cloud in that it 
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 5 of 12

appears right now that there are lienholders that are Larry 

Martin, judgment creditor, Mr. MacKay, and Mr. Burelli as 

some part owners of the vehicle. Given what Mr. Goldsborough 

has said, that he would satisfy those liens including Mr. Martin’s 

lien before making distributions ultimately to Mr. Burelli which 

is the normal course of business with car assignment and car

liens. So I ruled on the motion regarding contempt.

I ruled on the affidavit and striking the affidavit. I’ve sort of half 

ruled on the temporary restraining order. So what I want you to 

do, Mr. Bush, is submit an order that grants in part the 

temporary restraining order. What I want to do is I want to issue 

an order so if somebody looked at the court file, they’ll see that 

the title is as clean as can possibly be.

Now, to address some other additional issues: The Court is not 

going to order that this be sold at the Barrett-Jackson auction in 

January. The Court finds that the obligation to make quarterly 

reports under the August 7, 2015, order continues to exist. The 

car is to remain in the possession of Harbor insured by 

Harbor/Top Flight Corvettes/Mr. Burelli until it’s sold. The 

August 7, 2015, order said that the car should be sold. It did not 

say what would happen if it was not sold. The Court’s convinced 

given what I’ve heard today that a forced sale, whether it’s a 

sheriff sale in Porter County or sale at Barrett-Jackson, would not 

necessarily return the greatest amount of money although it 

would return the soonest amount of money, and I don’t believe 

that’s fair to Mr. Burelli.

* * * * *

What they asked for -- you asked that this be sold at BarrettJackson in Scottsdale in January. That request is denied. The 

finding that they were held in contempt doesn’t satisfy the Trial 

Rules. And -- however, the quarterly reports need to be filed on 
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 6 of 12

time. Mr. Martin’s interest is still protected through the Zurich 

insurance policy. . . . The lien is going to remain in place and go 

up by $68 every day at ten percent interest. Your client is going 

to get more money the longer that it takes to sell. Your client’s 

interest is protected by order of this Court. . . .

Tr. Vol. II pp. 95-100.

[8] The trial court then entered a written order as follows:

1. That the Court finds that the subject Corvette 

automobile is currently in the possession of Intervenor

Gino P. Burelli, II (hereinafter referred to as “Burelli”), 

and has been since the last Order of this Court, and is 

housed, per the requirements of a certain Zurich Policy 

of Insurance at the Harbor Automotive store located in 

Portage, Indiana;

2. That Burelli shall continue to store, house and safe 

keep the Corvette pursuant to all requirements of the 

Zurich Insurance Policy, and shall maintain said 

Zurich policy insuring the subject Corvette until said 

vehicle is sold, or until further Order of this Court;

3. That Burelli currently has a brokerage contract with 

Charles Goldsborough to sell said Corvette automobile; 

that Charles Goldsborough has been made aware of, 

and has acknowledged in open court, the judgment lien 

of Judgment-Plaintiff Larry Martin (hereinafter referred 

to as “Martin”);

4. That Martin’s Verified Motion for Proceedings 

Supplemental should be and is hereby denied; that 

Martin’s judgment shall continue to accrue interest at 

the judgment interest rate set forth in the Judgment 
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 7 of 12

from the State of Maryland, Montgomery County, 

Cause No. 111475-C of 10% per annum on the unpaid

judgment itself, until paid in full;

5. That Martin’s judgment lien in the subject Corvette 

automobile is hereby confirmed by this Court, in the 

principal sum of $250,600.00, with present interest 

(November 30, 2017) in the amount of $185,449.29, for 

a total current amount of $436,049.29, with interest

continuing to accrue at the rate of $68.61 per diem;

6. That Burelli’s Verified Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction is 

granted, in part, in that Martin is preliminarily 

restrained and enjoined from any further attempt to 

seek physical possession of the subject Corvette 

automobile, or to have it sold at auction prior to 

midnight, August 7, 2018;

7. That during the period of time from the date of this 

Court Order until August 7, 2018, Burelli shall utilize 

his best efforts to sell the subject Corvette either 

individually, or through a broker, for the highest 

possible price given the unique nature of said Corvette

automobile; that if said vehicle has not been sold and 

Martin’s judgment lien satisfied, by said date, there will 

be an auction of some type as determined by the Court;

8. That Burelli shall prepare and file quarterly reports, 

concerning the efforts to sell and/or refurbish said 

Corvette automobile from the date of this Order 

through August 7, 2018, with the first quarterly report 

due on or before December 31, 2017, and quarterly 

thereafter until such time as the car is sold, or until 

further Order of this Court; the Court finds that the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 8 of 12

quarterly reports required pursuant to prior Order of 

this Court were not timely filed; Burelli is cautioned

that said reports must be filed timely or the Court may 

entertain a motion for sanctions should he fail to do so;

9. That in the event the subject Corvette is sold, said funds 

shall be held in escrow and disbursed by the broker or 

other sales agent in the following priority:

a. the judgment lien of Martin shall first be satisfied 

including interest up to the date of payment (the 

broker or sales agent shall confirm the amount

through counsel for Martin and counsel for Burelli);

b. any brokerage or sales agent fee;

c. any amount remaining due Kevin J. Mackay 

pursuant to the prior agreement between Kevin J. 

Mackay and Burelli;

d. the remaining sum to be paid to Burelli;

10. That Burelli shall have the right to pay off Martin’s 

judgment at any time, which payoff shall include 

interest up to the date of payoff;

11. That Martin’s request for a finding of contempt and 

bad faith against Burelli is denied[.]

Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 9-11. Martin now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 9 of 12

Analysis

[9] Martin is appealing the trial court’s order in the proceedings supplemental in 

Martin’s attempts to collect a judgment against Idoni. “Just as equitable 

principles are involved in proceedings supplemental as a remedy to creditors in 

discovering assets in collection of their judgments, it is appropriate under these 

specific circumstances for the trial court to exercise its equitable power here to 

protect the interests of” third parties, such as garnishee defendants. Branham 

Corp. v. Newland Res., LLC, 44 N.E.3d 1263, 1273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “As a 

general proposition, the trial court has full discretion to fashion equitable 

remedies that are complete and fair to all parties involved.” Id. (quoting Swami, 

Inc. v. Lee, 841 N.E.2d 1173, 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied). 

“Nonetheless, trial courts will not exercise equitable powers when an adequate 

remedy at law exists.” Id. “Where necessary, equity has the power to pierce 

rigid statutory rules to prevent injustice.” Id. “But if substantial justice can be 

accomplished by following the law, and the parties’ actions are clearly governed 

by rules of law, equity follows the law.” Id. 

[10] Here, Burelli filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to delay a sheriff’s sale 

of the vehicle. On appeal, Martin argues that the trial court erred by granting 

Burelli’s motion for preliminary injunction. In general, to obtain a preliminary 

injunction, the moving party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the 

evidence: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success at trial; (2) the remedies at law 

are inadequate; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the potential 

harm to the nonmoving party from the granting of an injunction; and (4) the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 10 of 12

public interest would not be disserved by granting the requested injunction. 

Cent. Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723, 727 (Ind. 2008). The 

reasonable likelihood of success at trial factor appears to be inapplicable here 

because we are dealing with proceedings supplemental, and there is no 

argument that Martin’s lien is invalid. Injunctions in the context of proceedings 

supplemental, although rare, are permissible. See, e.g., 13 Ind. Law Encyc. 

Execution § 36 (“An injunction to prevent a party from making use of a writ of 

execution will be granted where there is some recognized ground for equity to 

interpose its power to grant relief.”). We also note that “[e]quity will not 

interfere to restrain a sale under execution of property belonging to a person 

other than the judgment debtor, unless such property has a special value, 

rendering compensation in damages impossible, or such sale will result in 

consequential damages, or the claim of one party involves or depends on some 

equitable interest or feature.” 13 Ind. Law Encyc. Execution § 37 (citing Boone v. 

Van Gorder, 164 Ind. 499, 74 N.E. 4 (1905))

[11] Indiana Trial Rule 52(A) requires a trial court to make special findings of fact 

without request “in granting or refusing preliminary injunctions.” Further, 

Indiana Trial Rule 65(D) provides: “Every order granting temporary injunction 

and every restraining order shall include or be accompanied by findings as 

required by Rule 52 . . . .” A trial court’s failure to enter findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, as required by Indiana Trial Rule 52 and Indiana Trial Rule 

65, in an order granting a preliminary injunction constitutes reversible error. 

GKC Indiana Theatres, Inc. v. Elk Retail Inv’rs, LLC., 764 N.E.2d 647, 651 (Ind. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 11 of 12

Ct. App. 2002). “The purpose of Rule 52(A) is ‘to provide the parties and the 

reviewing court with the theory upon which the trial judge decided the case in 

order that the right of review for error may be effectively preserved.’” In re 

Paternity of S.A.M., 85 N.E.3d 879, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Carmichael 

v. Siegel, 670 N.E.2d 890, 891 (Ind. 1996)). “Oral findings and conclusions can 

achieve this purpose so long as they are thoroughly detailed in the record.” Id. 

[12] Here, the trial court’s order is lacking the required special findings of fact that 

are required pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52 and 65. The trial court’s order 

addresses several motions, including the motion for a preliminary injunction. 

However, the specific portions of the order addressing the motion for 

preliminary injunction merely grant the preliminary injunction and give details 

on how Burelli should attempt to sell the vehicle. The trial court did not 

mention any of the factors that are considered in evaluating whether to grant a 

preliminary injunction. Even if we consider the trial court’s oral comments at 

the end of the hearing, the findings are simply inadequate to permit appellate 

review. The trial court explained the relief it was ordering without explaining 

why an injunction was necessary. We remand this cause for the trial court to 

make specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon as required by Indiana 

Trial Rule 52 and Indiana Trial Rule 65. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana |Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-25| May 29, 2018 Page 12 of 12

Conclusion

[13] The trial court’s findings are inadequate to permit appellate review of its order 

granting Burelli’s preliminary injunction. We remand with instruction for the 

trial court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon. 

[14] Remanded.

Vaidik, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.