Court Opinion

ID: 9911645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 17:03:20.353906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:18.720188
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              Dec 20 2023, 10:10 am

                                                                                   CLERK
                                                                               Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                  Court of Appeals
                                                                                    and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
John E. Brengle
Indiana Legal Services, Inc.
New Albany, Indiana
Roderick E. Bohannan
Indiana Legal Services, Inc.
Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lacey Ann Murphy,                                         December 20, 2023
Appellant,                                                Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                          23A-SC-1614
        v.                                                Appeal from the Floyd Superior
                                                          Court
William Cook,                                             The Honorable James B. Hancock,
Appellee.                                                 Judge
                                                          Trial Court Cause No.
                                                          22D02-2001-SC-1

                                  Opinion by Judge Brown
                                Judges Bailey and May concur.

Brown, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-1614 | December 20, 2023                      Page 1 of 10
[1]   Lacey Ann Murphy appeals the trial court’s denial of her Motion to Set Aside

      Body Attachment. Finding the requirements of Ind. Trial Rule 64(A) were not

      satisfied and the body attachment was expired, we reverse and remand.

      Facts and Procedural History

[2]   On September 8, 2020, the small claims division of the Floyd Superior Court

      entered a default judgment against Murphy and Justin Bond and in favor of

      William Cook in the amount of $800. Cook later filed a motion for proceedings

      supplemental. On February 18, 2021, the court issued an order that Murphy

      and Bond appear on March 24, 2021. 1 On March 24, 2021, the court issued a

      rule to show cause ordering Murphy to appear on April 28, 2021, to show cause

      for failing to appear on March 24, 2021. 2 On March 30, 2021, the court issued

      an Amended Rule to Show Cause, which contained a different address for

      Murphy and Bond, ordering them to appear on April 28, 2021. 3

[3]   On May 6, 2021, the court issued a “Body Attachment.” Appellant’s Appendix

      Volume II at 41. The body attachment states: “You are hereby commanded to

      1
       The address for service on the order was an address in Floyds Knobs, Indiana. An entry on February 18,
      2021, in the chronological case summary (“CCS”) states with respect to Murphy “Served by Sheriff’s Office”
      and “left and mailed copy.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 7.
      2
       The address for Murphy on the order was the address in Floyds Knobs. An entry on March 29, 2021, in the
      CCS states with respect to Murphy “Service by Sheriff’s Office” and “Left & mailed copy.” Appellant’s
      Appendix Volume II at 7.
      3
        The address for Murphy and Bond on the amended order was an address on Harvard Drive in Clarksville,
      Indiana. A March 31, 2021 entry in the CCS states: “Court filed an Amended RTSC due to Def calling with
      a new address.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 7. Another March 31, 2021 entry in the CCS states with
      respect to Murphy “Service by Sheriff’s Office” and “Left & mailed copy.” Id. at 8.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-1614 | December 20, 2023                         Page 2 of 10
      attach the person of Justin Bond . . . .” Id. A line is drawn around Murphy’s

      name in the caption. 4 An entry on June 2, 2021, in the CCS indicates a hearing

      was held on May 26, 2021, and states: “Plaintiff present; defendant present;

      defendant agrees to pay $200/month beginning 6-21-21 . . . .” Id. at 8. An

      entry on June 25, 2021, in the CCS indicates a hearing was held on June 23,

      2021, and states: “Plaintiff fails to appear; defendant appears; plaintiff to

      request new date and notify defendant.” Id. at 9. On Friday, January 6, 2023,

      Murphy was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy because her license plate was not

      visible, the deputy was advised by dispatch that there was an active warrant for

      a body attachment for Murphy, and the deputy handcuffed Murphy and

      transported her to the Floyd County Jail where she was held until Monday,

      January 9, 2023.

[4]   On April 4, 2023, Murphy filed a Motion to Set Aside Body Attachment

      together with exhibits including her affidavit and an incident report from the

      Floyd County Sheriff’s Department. In her motion, Murphy argued that the

      body attachment and the process by which it was obtained failed to conform

      with Ind. Trial Rule 64(A) and should be set aside. In particular, she argued

      the rule to show cause was not served on her personally or by certified mail; the

      body attachment did not include information sufficient to identify her, expired

      4
        The appellant’s appendix includes two body attachment orders. A line is drawn around Murphy’s name in
      the caption of one of the orders, and a line is drawn around Bond’s name in the caption of the other order.
      Both orders refer to “DOB: 11-21-97” and state: “You are hereby commanded to attach the person of Justin
      Bond . . . .” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 32, 41.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-1614 | December 20, 2023                           Page 3 of 10
      180 days after it was issued, failed to include the expiration date, and should

      have been recalled after she appeared in court; the sheriff did not return the

      expired body attachment order to the clerk of court as required; and she was

      arrested and incarcerated on January 6, 2023, based on the invalid and expired

      body attachment. She further argued:

              Regrettably, the problem of unlawful body attachment writs is
              not unique to this case. Counsel for Ms. Murphy has located no
              fewer than twelve additional writs of attachment issued by this
              Court in small claims cases which failed to show that the writ
              was to expire 180 days after issuance. In most of these cases, the
              rule to show cause was not personally served as required by law.
              A list of these cases is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

      Id. at 39.

[5]   In her attached affidavit, Murphy indicated that the court’s February 18, 2021

      order and March 24, 2021 rule to show cause were sent to an address in Floyds

      Knobs and that she never lived at that address. She stated that she did not

      receive the court’s order to appear sent to the Harvard Drive address and that,

      had she known about the April 28 hearing, she would have appeared in court.

      Murphy further stated:

              7.       I would not deliberately miss a court hearing I was ordered to
                       attend. In fact, I did come to court as ordered on May 26,
                       2021, where I made payment arrangements. I was ordered to
                       return to court on June 23, 2021, and did return. Mr. Cook
                       did not appear at that hearing.

              8.       At neither hearing was I informed there was a warrant for my
                       arrest dated May 6, 2021.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-1614 | December 20, 2023      Page 4 of 10
                 9.       In fact, I didn’t know about the warrant until December of
                          2022, when I learned that Mr. Cook was trying to garnish my
                          wages. When I asked the clerk about the case, I was given a
                          docket sheet and noticed on it that a “Writ of Attachment for
                          the Body of a Person” was ordered against me back in May
                          of 2021. It should be noted that the name on the Writ is not
                          mine, and the birth date [] is not mine either. I contacted the
                          clerk about the writ, and was told there was no warrant in
                          effect.

                 10.      On Friday, January 6, 2023, I was pulled over by a sheriff’s
                          deputy because he couldn’t see my license plate. The deputy
                          told me there was a warrant for my arrest from this court. I
                          was handcuffed and taken to the Floyd County Jail.

                 11.      I was held in jail for the weekend because, I was told, there
                          had to be a court hearing before I could be released. On
                          Monday morning, January 9, I was released from jail. I went
                          to the clerk’s office, but no hearing was set. Nobody seemed
                          to understand why. To this day, I don’t know if I could be
                          arrested again on the same warrant.

      Id. at 43-44.

[6]   On April 6, 2023, the court denied Murphy’s Motion to Set Aside Body

      Attachment. 5 Murphy filed a motion to correct error, the court did not rule on

      the motion to correct error, and the motion was deemed denied.

      5
          The court’s order did not include any findings or reasons for denying Murphy’s motion.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-1614 | December 20, 2023                        Page 5 of 10
      Discussion

[7]   Murphy maintains the trial court failed to provide the protections mandated by

      Ind. Trial Rule 64(A) and erred in denying her motion to set aside. She argues

      the body attachment was invalid because she was not served with a rule to

      show cause in accordance with Trial Rule 64(A)(2) and the body attachment

      failed to contain sufficient information to identify her. She asserts that, even if

      the body attachment had been valid, it should have been recalled when she

      appeared on May 25, 2021. She further argues the body attachment expired

      more than a year before she was arrested. She states, “[h]aving spent a

      weekend in jail on a warrant which had expired fourteen months earlier and for

      no valid reason, [she] is understandably concerned it could happen again” and

      “the scope of noncompliance in this court raises concerns that other trial courts

      in Indiana may not have fully implemented these basic procedural safeguards.”

      Appellant’s Brief at 22-23.

[8]   We note that Cook has not filed an appellee’s brief. When an appellee fails to

      submit a brief, we do not undertake the burden of developing arguments, and

      we apply a less stringent standard of review, that is, we may reverse if the

      appellant establishes prima facie error. Bixler v. Delano, 185 N.E.3d 875, 877

      (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Prima facie is defined as “at first sight, on first

      appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. at 877-878 (citing Graziani v. D & R Const.,

      39 N.E.3d 688, 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)).

[9]   We generally review trial court rulings on motions for relief from judgment and

      to correct error for an abuse of discretion. See Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v.
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-1614 | December 20, 2023       Page 6 of 10
       Holmes, 885 N.E.2d 1265, 1270 (Ind. 2008), reh’g denied. Ind. Trial Rule 60(B)

       provides in part that the court may relieve a party from a judgment for the

       following reasons: “(4) entry of default or judgment by default was entered

       against such party who was served only by publication and who was without

       actual knowledge of the action and judgment, order or proceedings”; “(6) the

       judgment is void”; “(7) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged,

       or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise

       vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective

       application”; or “(8) any reason justifying relief from the operation of the

       judgment, other than those reasons set forth in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and

       (4).” A movant filing a motion for reasons (1), (2), (3), (4), and (8) must allege

       a meritorious claim or defense. Trial Rule 60(B).

[10]   Ind. Trial Rule 64 governs the seizure of a person or property. Trial Rule 64(A)

       provides in part:

               (2)      The court may issue a writ of attachment, bench warrant, or
                        body attachment if:

                        (a)      a rule to show cause has been issued by the court and
                                 served upon the judgment debtor by delivering a copy
                                 of the same to the judgment debtor personally.
                                 Personal service under this rule includes certified mail
                                 signed by the judgment debtor;

                        (b)      if service is not made in open court, the person making
                                 service has filed a return or affidavit stating that personal
                                 service was made upon the judgment debtor and setting
                                 forth the time, place, and manner thereof; and

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-1614 | December 20, 2023            Page 7 of 10
                        (c)      the judgment debtor has failed to appear at the rule to
                                 show cause hearing as ordered.

                        In addition to statutory requirements, the writ of attachment,
                        bench warrant, or body attachment shall contain sufficient
                        information to identify the judgment debtor.

                                                       *****

               (4)      Effective September 1, 2020, a writ of attachment for a
                        person expires one hundred eighty (180) days after it is issued
                        and the expiration date shall appear on the face of the writ.
                        A sheriff who has an expired writ of attachment for a person
                        shall make a return on the writ stating it has expired and shall
                        return it to the clerk of the court that issued it. The clerk
                        shall enter the fact that the writ of attachment for a person
                        has expired on the chronological case summary and notify
                        the judgment creditor. The judgment creditor may request
                        the court to issue another writ of attachment for a person as a
                        part of a subsequent proceeding supplemental action. Writs
                        of attachment for a person that are pending on the effective
                        date of this rule will expire on March 1, 2021.[6]

[11]   The record reveals that several of the requirements of Trial Rule 64(A) were not

       satisfied. Rule 64(A)(2) provides that a court may issue a body attachment if a

       rule to show cause was issued and served upon the judgment debtor “by

       delivering a copy of the same to the judgment debtor personally” and that

       personal service “includes certified mail signed by the judgment debtor.” The

       court issued a rule to show cause on March 24, 2021, which included an

       address for service in Floyds Knobs, and an amended rule to show cause on

       6
        Trial Rule 64(A)(4) became effective on September 1, 2020. See Order Amending Rules of Trial Procedure,
       Cause No. 20S-MS-1 (filed October 7, 2020).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-1614 | December 20, 2023                       Page 8 of 10
       March 30, 2021, which included an address for service on Harvard Drive in

       Clarksville. Entries in the CCS related to both orders state: “Left & mailed

       copy.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 7-8. There is no indication that the

       orders were served by delivering a copy to Murphy personally or that service

       was made by certified mail signed by Murphy. Further, Rule 64(A)(2) provides

       a body attachment “shall contain sufficient information to identify the

       judgment debtor.” While the May 6, 2021 body attachment attached to the

       motion to set aside includes a line drawn around Murphy’s name in the

       caption, the text of the order states: “You are hereby commanded to attach the

       person of Justin Bond . . . .” Id. at 41 (emphasis added). Also, the body

       attachment contains a date of birth, and Murphy states in her affidavit that the

       date of birth appearing on the order is not her date of birth.

[12]   Moreover, the May 6, 2021 body attachment had expired. Rule 64(A)(4)

       provides that “a writ of attachment for a person expires one hundred eighty

       (180) days after it is issued” and “the expiration date shall appear on the face of

       the writ.” Here, the body attachment was issued on May 6, 2021, and thus

       expired 180 days later in November 2021. We observe that no expiration date

       appears on the face of the May 6, 2021 body attachment as required. Rule

       64(A)(4) also provides that “[a] sheriff who has an expired writ of attachment

       for a person shall make a return on the writ stating it has expired and shall

       return it to the clerk of the court that issued it” and that the clerk “shall enter

       the fact that the writ of attachment for a person has expired on the

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-1614 | December 20, 2023        Page 9 of 10
       chronological case summary.” There is no indication in the record or CCS that

       these steps were taken with respect to the expired body attachment.

[13]   The record reveals that Murphy was arrested on January 6, 2023, and spent

       three nights in the Floyd County Jail based on the May 6, 2021 body

       attachment which had expired over a year earlier. Also, as she notes, Murphy

       appeared in court on May 26 and June 23, 2021.

[14]   Based on the record, we conclude that Murphy has established prima facie error.

       We reverse and remand to the Floyd Superior Court with instructions to grant

       Murphy’s April 4, 2023 Motion to Set Aside Body Attachment. We urge courts

       to be mindful of the provisions and requirements of Trial Rule 64(A) with

       respect to issuing a body attachment including the provision that such an

       attachment for a person expires 180 days after it is issued and the requirement

       that the expiration date shall appear on the face of the writ.

[15]   For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand.

[16]   Reversed and remanded.

       Bailey, J., and May, J. concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-1614 | December 20, 2023   Page 10 of 10