Court Opinion

ID: 9897248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:09:13.24385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:29.921442
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                            Oct 26 2023, 9:29 am

                                                                                CLERK
                                                                            Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                               Court of Appeals
                                                                                 and Tax Court

      ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
      Thomas M. Johnston                                         Raegan M. Gibson
      Carmel, Indiana                                            Mackenzie E. Skalski
                                                                 Monica S. McCoskey
                                                                 Kaylin O. Cook
                                                                 Paganelli Law Group
                                                                 Indianapolis, Indiana

                                                   IN THE
          COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

      Robert Sickle,                                             October 26, 2023
      Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                                 23A-PL-644
              v.                                                 Appeal from the Marion Circuit
                                                                 Court
      JTJ Indiana, LLC,                                          The Honorable Amber Collins-
      Appellee-Plaintiff.                                        Gebrehiwet, Judge
                                                                 Trial Court Cause No.
                                                                 49C01-2111-PL-37001

                                        Opinion by Judge Mathias
                                      Judges Riley and Crone concur.

      Mathias, Judge.

[1]   Robert Sickle appeals the Marion Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to set

      aside a default judgment against him on JTJ Indiana, LLC’s (“JTJ’s”)

      complaint to quiet title to a residential property in Indianapolis. Sickle presents
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-644 | October 26, 2023                           Page 1 of 6
      a single dispositive issue for our review, namely, whether the default judgment

      is void for lack of personal jurisdiction.

[2]   We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[3]   On July 1, 2021, JTJ bought a residence at 5102 Hillside Avenue in

      Indianapolis (“the property”) from Janice Wright. Wright executed a quitclaim

      deed, which was recorded in Marion County on August 16. On November 4,

      JTJ filed a complaint to quiet title to the property “against ‘The World.’”

      Appellee’s App. Vol. 2, p. 2. JTJ named as defendants Wright’s predecessors in

      title to the property as well as “unknown occupant,” “John Doe/Jane Doe,”

      and “The World[.]” Id. at 5. JTJ served the unnamed defendants notice of its

      complaint by publication pursuant to Indiana Code section 32-30-3-14(f) and

      Trial Rule 4.13.

[4]   Sickle has lived at the property continuously since March 1, 2004, when he first

      leased the property from Wright. In 2007, Wright “renewed” Sickle’s lease for

      “25 years[.]” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 12. And, following a judgment for Sickle against

      Wright in November 2008, Wright agreed that Sickle could live at the property

      for as long as he wanted to. However, both Wright and Sickle acknowledged a

      “pending foreclosure” on the property and that Sickle might be evicted.

      Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 68. Sickle never recorded his leasehold interest in

      the property.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-644 | October 26, 2023       Page 2 of 6
[5]   On April 18, 2022, JTJ moved for default judgment on its complaint. The trial

      court granted that motion on May 4. On September 16, JTJ served Sickle with

      an eviction notice. As a result, Sickle hired an attorney. The attorney told Sickle

      about the quiet title action, and, on November 12, Sickle filed a motion to set

      aside the default judgment. In his motion, Sickle argued that the default

      judgment should be set aside pursuant to both Trial Rule 60(B)(1) and (8). In

      support, Sickle alleged excusable neglect in that he “had no actual knowledge”

      of the quiet title action until after the default judgment was entered. Appellant’s

      App. Vol. 2, p. 22. And in support of relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(8), Sickle

      alleged that equity required that the default judgment be set aside because he

      had not been personally served and because JTJ had “made no inquiry of

      Sickle’s interest” in the property. Id. at 25. Sickle also alleged meritorious

      defenses.

[6]   The trial court denied Sickle’s motion following a hearing. And the trial court

      denied Sickle’s subsequent motion to correct error. This appeal ensued.

      Discussion and Decision
[7]   Sickle contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to set aside

      the default judgment. In particular, Sickle argues that the default judgment is

      void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient service of process.

      While he purported to base his motion to set aside default judgment on Trial

      Rule 60(B)(1) and (8), we treat his motion as though he argued Trial Rule

      60(B)(6), which applies where a default judgment is alleged to be void.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-644 | October 26, 2023         Page 3 of 6
[8]    Our standard of review is well settled. Typically, we review a trial court’s ruling

       on a motion to set aside a judgment for an abuse of discretion, meaning that we

       must determine whether the trial court’s ruling is clearly against the logic and

       effect of the facts and inferences supporting the ruling. Hair v. Deutsche Bank Nat.

       Tr. Co., 18 N.E.3d 1019, 1022 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). However, whether personal

       jurisdiction exists over a defendant is a question of law that we review de novo.

       Id. A judgment entered where there has been insufficient service of process is

       void for want of personal jurisdiction. Id. “By the plain terms of the rule,

       motions to set aside under subsection (6) of Rule 60(B) do not require proof of a

       meritorious defense to the judgment being challenged.”1 Id.

[9]    Sickle argues that JTJ knew or “should have known of Sickle’s occupancy” of

       the property when it filed its complaint. Appellant’s Br. at 22. He maintains that

       his occupancy was “open and conspicuous” and that JTJ had actual knowledge

       of his lease agreement with Wright prior to the entry of default judgment. Id.

       Thus, Sickle contends that JTJ’s notice by publication, which did not name

       him, was insufficient as a matter of law.

[10]   However, as JTJ argued to the trial court, Indiana Code section 32-30-3-14(b)

       governs who may be named as a defendant in a quiet title action. That statute

       provides that a plaintiff who brings a quiet title action

                  may . . . name as a defendant any of the following individuals:

       1
           Accordingly, we need not address Sickle’s contentions on appeal regarding his alleged meritorious defenses.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-644 | October 26, 2023                                 Page 4 of 6
                        (1) A person:

                                 (A) who may have an interest in real
                                 estate that is the subject of the
                                 proceeding; and

                                 (B) whose name appears of record in a record
                                 concerning the real estate.

                        (2) A person who bears one of the following
                        relationships to a former owner or encumbrancer of
                        the real estate:

                                 (A) Spouse.

                                 (B) Widow or widower.

                                 (C) Heir or devisee.

               The person who institutes the proceeding does not have to know
               the name of a person described in subdivision (2).

       Ind. Code § 32-30-3-14(b) (emphases added).

[11]   The undisputed evidence establishes that Sickle’s lease for the property was not

       recorded. Thus, whether JTJ knew that Sickle lived at the property is of no

       moment. Under the statute, JTJ was not required to name Sickle as a defendant

       in the quiet title action, and Sickle cannot be heard to complain that he was not

       served with the complaint. See id.

[12]   Moreover, Sickle’s motion to set aside the default judgment presumes that he

       has an interest in this quiet title action, but he is incorrect. As the trial court

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-644 | October 26, 2023            Page 5 of 6
       found, JTJ owns the property, and Sickle claims only a leasehold interest. Our

       Supreme Court has held that a tenant has no right to bring a quiet title action

       against an owner of real property. Santa Claus, Inc. v. Santa Claus of Santa Claus,

       217 Ind. 251, 255-56, 27 N.E.2d 354, 356 (1940). And Sickle has not

       demonstrated that his unrecorded leasehold interest is enough to challenge

       JTJ’s quiet title complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of

       Sickle’s motion to set aside the default judgment.

[13]   Affirmed.

       Riley, J., and Crone, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-PL-644 | October 26, 2023         Page 6 of 6