Title: Branham v. Varble
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 62S01-1103-SC-141
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: August 30, 2011

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. 62S01-1103-SC-141 
QUINCY BRANHAM & 
SHANNON BRANHAM, 
Appellants (Plaintiffs below), 
v. 
RODNEY VARBLE & 
NORMAN CHASTAIN, 
Appellees (Defendants below). 
Appeal from the Perry Circuit Court, No. 62C01-0902-SC-00036 
The Honorable Lucy Goffinet 
The Honorable Karen A. Werner, Magistrate 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 62A01-1004-SC-00192 
August 30, 2011 
Shepard, Chief Justice. 
After conducting proceedings supplemental in a case on the small claims docket, the trial 
court ordered two self-represented judgment debtors to pay on the judgment despite their lack of 
non-exempt income.  We reverse, holding that entitlement to the very ordinary statutory 
exemptions at issue here is not forfeited by failure of an unrepresented litigant to plead them as 
an affirmative defense in the course of purposefully informal small claims processes. 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Aug 30 2011, 2:07 pm
2 
Facts and Procedural History 
The case in this appeal was styled Branham v. Varble & Chastain.  A second case was 
styled Branham v. Varble & Varble, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2011), and we decide it today by 
separate opinion.  
In this case, the court entered a consent judgment on March 12, 2009, in the amount of 
$4350.75 plus $99 in court costs.  In November 2009, the parties tendered an agreed garnishment 
order.  The second case produced a judgment for $2750.50 plus $96 in costs.  
Proceedings supplemental were filed in both cases.  Both cases involved the same 
judgment debtors and had one plaintiff in common.  The trial court held a single hearing to 
receive evidence.  Because the only issue in proceedings supplemental is the extent of the 
debtor‘s non-exempt property subject to execution, the evidence and issues were identical in both 
cases.  The Branhams were not represented by counsel at this proceeding.   
Mr. Branham testified that he makes $100 per week working for Harrison‘s Auto 
Salvage. (Tr. at 5, 10.)  He has worked there almost four years.  (Tr. at 5.)  Prior to working at 
Harrison‘s, he was unemployed and looking for work for three years.  (Tr. at 13.)  Mrs. Branham 
receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI) of $674 per month.  (Tr. at 8.)  These are the 
couple‘s only sources of income.  (Tr. at 8.) 
The Branhams pay $400 in monthly rent out of Mrs. Branham‘s SSI.  (Tr. at 8.)  The two 
split the remaining living expenses including food and utilities.  (Tr. at 10, 11.)  Mr. Branham 
has purchased a $2500 truck so that he ―could make it back and forth to make money.‖  (Tr. at 
11.)  He pays $200 a month on the truck.  (Tr. at 7.)   
The court ordered the Branhams to pay $50 per month on this judgment (and $50 per 
month on the other judgment, for a total of $100 per month).  It also ordered Mr. Branham to 
3 
apply for five jobs per week and submit proof to the plaintiff‘s lawyer.  The judge also scheduled 
a status conference in June to check on Mr. Branham‘s job situation.   
The Branhams appealed with assistance of counsel.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the 
order to pay $50 per month and reversed the order to apply for five jobs per week.  Branham v. 
Varble & Chastain, 937 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).  We granted transfer, 944 N.E.2d 492 
(Ind. 2011) (table), vacating the decision of the Court of Appeals.  
Standard of Review 
We review facts from a bench trial under the clearly erroneous standard with due 
deference paid to the trial court‘s opportunity to assess witness credibility.  Morton v. Ivacic, 898 
N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. 2008).  ―This deferential standard of review is particularly important in small 
claims actions, where trials are informal, ‗with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice‘ 
between parties according to the rules of substantive law.‖  Id. at 1199 (quoting City of Dunkirk 
Water & Sewage Dep‘t v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115, 116 (Ind. 1995)).  The only issues presented in 
this case are questions of law.   Accordingly, we review them de novo.  Id.  
As a preliminary matter, we note that Varble and Chastain have not filed an appellee‘s 
brief.  Under that circumstance, we do not undertake to develop the appellee‘s arguments.  
Rather, we will reverse upon an appellant‘s prima facie showing of reversible error.  Id. 
I. 
Courts Cannot Order Debtors to Pay Out of Exempt Income. 
The Branhams first argue that the trial court should not have ordered payment because 
there was no evidence that the Branhams had any non-exempt income.  (Appellant‘s Br. at 4–5.)  
4 
The principle that debtors should have a certain amount of property or income exempted from 
collection finds its origin in our constitution, which says:   
The privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life, shall be 
recognized by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from 
seizure or sale, for the payment of any debt or liability hereafter contracted:  and 
there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud. 
Ind. Const. Art. 1, § 22. 
 
To enforce Article 1, Section 22, our General Assembly has enacted multiple exemption 
statutes sheltering certain property and income from attachment.  The general rule of civil 
litigation is that these exemptions must be asserted by the debtor.  Mims v. Commercial Credit 
Corp., 261 Ind. 591, 307 N.E.2d 867 (1974).  Because the statutory exemptions exist to give life 
to a constitutional right, we have held that there should be exceptions and modifications to this 
general rule ―consistent with fairness and practical realities.‖  Id. at 595, 307 N.E.2d at 869.   
 
In Mims, the judgment debtor was appealing a garnishment order from proceedings 
supplemental.  The debtor argued that she was entitled to the resident-householder exemption.  
We embraced the following procedure to ensure full enjoyment of the constitutional right:   
If a debtor-defendant is represented by counsel during proceedings supplemental, 
the burden is upon the debtor to affirmatively interpose the resident-householder 
claim. . . . If, however, a debtor-defendant is not represented by counsel, the trial 
court must determine:  (1) whether the debtor is a resident-householder, and (2) if 
the debtor is a resident-householder, which exemption (either the UCCC or 
resident-householder) would be least burdensome on the debtor.  The trial court, 
after due consideration of these matters, shall enter the appropriate garnishment 
order . . . .  
Id. at 595–96, 307 N.E.2d at 869–70 (emphasis in original).  
 
The Court of Appeals declared in the present appeal that Mims should not be understood 
to relieve even unrepresented litigants of their general obligation to identify and plead 
5 
affirmatively any of the many exemptions to which they might be entitled.  Branham, 937 
N.E.2d at 352.  It expressed concern that to do otherwise would place on the trial judge the 
burden of identifying the myriad of exemptions and becoming an advocate for one party rather 
than a neutral arbiter.  Id. 
 
This concern is the basis for the general rule, certainly for represented parties on the 
plenary dockets.  In small claims court, however, trials are ―informal, with the sole objective of 
dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law. . . .‖  Ind. 
Small Claims Rule 8(A).  People often appear in small claims court without attorneys and may 
not have any knowledge of exemptions or any realistic way to determine which exemptions 
might apply.   
 
The facts of this case suggest why holding unrepresented litigants to account on appeal 
for affirmatively pleading particular exemptions may often prove too harsh.  The Branhams‘ 
combined monthly income is $1074.  Subtracting $200 for the truck payment and $400 for rent, 
the Branhams have only $474 left to pay their food and utility bills for the month.  Mr. Branham 
testified that after paying all their modest expenses there is no money left over at the end of the 
month.   
 
The mathematics of this evidence fit squarely within the statute the Branhams say 
exempts their income, Section 24-4.5-5-105(2)(b) (2007) of the Indiana Code.  Section 24-4.5-5-
105(2) limits the amount that can be garnished from any single workweek to the lesser of twenty-
five percent of that week‘s disposable earnings or the amount of that week‘s disposable earnings 
that exceeds thirty times the federal minimum hourly wage.  Disposable earnings are defined as 
―that part of the earnings of an individual, including wages, commissions, income, rents, or 
profits remaining after the deduction from those earnings of amounts required by law to be 
withheld.‖  Ind. Code § 24-4.5-5-105(1)(a).  Mr. Branham testified that they have not been 
required to pay federal or state income tax since 2003 and that no money is withheld from his 
wages.  (Tr. at 10.) 
6 
 
For the purposes of this statute, garnishment is defined as ―any legal or equitable 
proceedings through which the earnings of an individual are required to be withheld by a 
garnishee, by the individual debtor, or by any other person for the payment of a judgment.‖  Ind. 
Code § 24-4.5-5-105(1)(b) (emphasis added).  Exemption statutes are construed liberally.  In re 
Zumbrun, 626 N.E.2d 452, 455 (Ind. 1993).  It seems clear that the trial court intended the 
Branhams to pay on this judgment out of Mr. Branham‘s weekly wages.  Under the definition in 
this statute, such an arrangement is a garnishment subject to the exemption. 
 
Twenty-five percent of $100 per week is $25.  The federal minimum wage at the time of 
the proceedings supplemental was $7.25 per hour.  29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1) (Supp. 2009).  Thirty 
times the minimum wage is $217.50.  Mr. Branham‘s weekly wages do not exceed $217.50, so 
all of his wages are protected from garnishment under Indiana Code § 24-4.5-5-105(2).  
 
As for Mrs. Branham‘s disability income, 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (2006) provides that SSI is 
not subject to garnishment for payment of a judgment. 
 
In short, this record contains no evidence that the Branhams have any property or income 
that is not covered by an exemption.  Therefore, we reverse the trial court‘s order requiring them 
to pay $50 per month on the judgment.     
 
We finish by emphasizing that a judicial officer hearing small claims is not charged with 
identifying and applying the entire gamut of exemptions.  The two involved here—the general 
wage exemption and the SSI exemption—are the stuff of everyday life in collections work.  We 
cannot say on appeal that they are lost through failure of formal pleading. 
7 
II. 
Scheduling Subsequent Proceedings Was Not Improper. 
The Branhams next argue that the trial court should not have allowed proceedings 
supplemental in light of its previous garnishment order.  They also say that the court did not have 
the authority to continue to order status conferences.  (Appellant‘s Br. at 6–7.)  
The general rule on the plenary docket court is that a judgment in proceedings 
supplemental bars subsequent proceedings supplemental when there are no new facts.  Kirk v. 
Monroe County Tire, 585 N.E.2d 1366, 1369 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).  As with informality in 
pleading, the rules on small claims reflect more flexibility on this point.  Indiana Small Claims 
Rule 11(C) provides that ―[i]f the judgment is not paid as ordered the court may modify its 
payment order as it deems necessary.‖  Some courts have adopted appropriate and reasonable 
limits on proceedings supplemental.1  The standard process would be to move from entry of a 
garnishment order to filing an information for contempt, but we are not prepared to say that a 
court that schedules a further hearing with an eye toward possible modification of its order 
commits abuse of discretion. 
III. 
It Was Improper to Order Mr. Branham to Apply for Jobs. 
The Branhams argue that the trial judge did not have the authority to order Mr. Branham 
to conduct a job search.  The Court of Appeals agreed, and so do we.  Indiana Trial Rule 69(E) 
allows a judgment debtor to be called to court ―to answer as to his non-exempt property subject 
to execution or proceedings supplemental to execution or to apply any such specified or 
unspecified property towards satisfaction of the judgment.‖  Ind. Trial Rule 69(E)(3).  Rule 
                                                 
1 By way of example, the Vanderburgh Circuit and Superior Courts recently amended their local rules 
regarding subsequent Motions for Proceedings Supplemental.  Once the garnishment order is obtained the 
hearings may not be continued and a subsequent motion is only permitted ―if the motion sets forth 
circumstances that have changed since the last hearing in regard to the defendant‘s financial status.‖  
Vanderburgh County Local Rules 82-TR69 Rule 1.23(C) and 82-SC00-S Rule 1.05(E) (effective May 10, 
2011). 
8 
69(E) also requires garnishees to answer as to the judgment debtor‘s property.  T.R. 69(E)(4).  
The rule does not confer upon the trial court the authority to force the judgment debtor to find a 
job or otherwise acquire non-exempt property.  See State ex rel. Wilson v. Monroe Superior 
Court IV, 444 N.E.2d 1178, 1180 (Ind. 1983).  This contrasts dramatically, of course, with the 
processes applicable to child support, where the obligor has an affirmative duty to generate 
support 
Conclusion 
Except for the court‘s directive that the Branhams return for a further hearing on the 
proceeding supplemental, we reverse. 
 
Dickson, Sullivan, Rucker, and David, JJ., concur.