Court Opinion

ID: 9961342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 16:06:59.338189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:38.604879
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                          Apr 18 2024, 9:16 am

                                                                              CLERK
                                                                          Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                             Court of Appeals
                                                                               and Tax Court

                                            IN THE

            Court of Appeals of Indiana
                                        Richard A. Colvin,
                                         Appellant-Defendant

                                                    v.

                                        George M. Taylor,
                                           Appellee-Plaintiff

                                             April 18, 2024
                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
                                           23A-MF-2053
                      Interlocutory Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court
                           The Honorable Robert A. Witham, Judge
                                       Trial Court Cause No.
                                        33C01-2003-MF-26

                               Opinion by Judge Bradford
                        Chief Judge Altice and Judge Felix concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MF-2053 | April 18, 2024                  Page 1 of 7
      Bradford, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   Richard Colvin and his wife entered into a contract for the sale of real estate

      (“the Contract”) with George Taylor. Eventually, Taylor initiated foreclosure

      proceedings against Colvin. Colvin filed counterclaims against Taylor for abuse

      of process and conversion of his business and personal property. Colvin

      demanded a jury trial on all issues raised in the pleadings. The trial court

      denied Colvin’s jury demand, after which Colvin sought this interlocutory

      appeal. Because we agree with the trial court that the equitable clean-up

      doctrine applies, we affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   In 2006, the Colvins entered into the Contract with Taylor. In March of 2020,

      Taylor initiated foreclosure proceedings against Colvin, allegedly in violation of

      Governor Holcomb’s Executive Order 20-06 staying foreclosure proceedings.

      That September, Taylor petitioned for immediate possession of the real estate.

      On December 7, 2020, the trial court granted Taylor’s petition, giving Colvin

      ten days to vacate the premises. On December 17, 2020, Taylor’s agents began

      taking possession of the property and removing Colvin’s personal property from

      the premises. In January of 2021, Colvin sought an interlocutory appeal

      challenging the possession order. See Colvin v. Taylor, 168 N.E.3d 784 (Ind. Ct.

      App. 2021).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MF-2053 | April 18, 2024        Page 2 of 7
[3]   In that case, we concluded that the trial court had erred “by awarding

      immediate possession of the house to the seller without requiring the seller to

      ‘file[] with the court a written undertaking in an amount fixed by the court and

      executed by a surety.’” Id. (quoting Indiana Code section 32-30-3-6). As a

      result, we reversed and remanded to the trial court. Id. After we had remanded

      the case to the trial court for further proceedings, Colvin filed a renewed motion

      to reconsider and vacate and set aside the possession order. The trial court

      granted his motion and ordered Taylor to return Colvin’s business and personal

      property and other equipment.

[4]   Also in January of 2021, Colvin filed his answer to Taylor’s complaint,

      including ten affirmative defenses and two counterclaims. As part of his

      answer, Colvin requested “a trial by jury on all issues raised in the pleadings[.]”

      Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 50. Colvin counterclaimed against Taylor for abuse

      of process and conversion of his business and personal property, seeking $1.25

      million in damages. On August 3, 2023, the trial court denied Colvin’s jury

      demand. Subsequently, Colvin petitioned the trial court to certify this issue for

      interlocutory appeal and, once certified, we accepted jurisdiction.

      Discussion and Decision
[5]   The Indiana Constitution guarantees that “[i]n all civil cases, the right of trial

      by jury shall remain inviolate.” Ind. Const. art. 1, § 20. However, this

      provision preserves the right to a jury trial only as it existed at common law,

      and a party is not entitled to such a trial on equitable claims. Lucas v. U.S. Bank,

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MF-2053 | April 18, 2024          Page 3 of 7
      N.A., 953 N.E.2d 457, 460 (Ind. 2011). “[W]hen both equitable and legal

      causes of action or defenses are joined in a single case, the equitable causes of

      action or defenses are to be tried by the court while the legal causes of action or

      defenses are to be tried by a jury.” Songer v. Civitas Bank, 771 N.E.2d 61, 64

      (Ind. 2002). Equity, however, subsumes an entire case where the “‘essential

      features of a suit’” demonstrate that “the lawsuit as a whole is equitable and the

      legal causes of action are not ‘distinct or severable[.]’” Lucas, 953 N.E.2d at 460

      (quoting Songer, 771 N.E.2d at 68). On the other hand, where a case includes

      “plainly equitable causes of action and sufficiently distinct, severable, and

      purely legal causes of action, then the legal claims require a trial by jury.” Id. at

      461. On appellate review, “[w]hether certain claims are entitled to a trial by

      jury presents a pure question of law. Therefore, we review the issue de novo.”

      Id. at 460.

[6]   Colvin argues that, because he seeks damages in his counterclaims for Taylor’s

      common-law torts of abuse of process and conversion, he is entitled to a trial by

      jury on those issues, despite the initial complaint consisting of an equitable

      claim. For his part, Taylor argues that Colvin’s legal claims have been

      subsumed into equity by virtue of the equitable clean-up doctrine. We agree

      with Taylor that the equitable clean-up doctrine brings this entire case into

      equity.

[7]   As a threshold matter, we lay out the various claims at issue. The present case

      began with Taylor’s foreclosure action against Colvin. “[F]oreclosure actions

      are equitable, ‘[a]nd being essentially equitable, the whole of the claim is drawn

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MF-2053 | April 18, 2024          Page 4 of 7
      into equity, including related legal claims and counterclaims.’” Lucas, 953

      N.E.2d at 465 (quoting Songer, 771 N.E.2d at 69) (emphasis added). As for his

      counterclaims, Colvin has asserted claims of abuse of process and conversion

      against Taylor based on Taylor’s pursuit of immediate possession allegedly in

      violation of emergency orders, his failure to file a surety bond as required by

      Indiana Code section 32-30-3-6, and his removal of various personal and

      business items of Colvin’s from the property. Consequently, we must

      determine whether Colvin’s counterclaims are sufficiently related to the

      foreclosure such that the foreclosure action subsumes the legal claims.

[8]   We find Lucas instructive on this issue. In that case, U.S. Bank filed a

      complaint to foreclose on the Lucases’ property and, in response, the Lucases

      made numerous legal claims, including violations of the Truth in Lending Act,

      Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act, and the Fair Debt Collection

      Practices Act, alleged civil conversion, civil deception, breach of contract and

      promissory estoppel, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

      Lucas, 953 N.E.2d at 462–63. The Court acknowledged that the Lucases had

      raised claims that were legal in nature and had requested damages for many of

      those claims; however, “after looking at the cause as a whole,” the Court

      “conclude[d] that the core questions underlying the Lucases’ legal claims

      significantly overlap with the foreclosure action that invoked the equitable

      jurisdiction of the trial court.” Id. at 466 (emphasis added). In other words,

      while there may have existed “peripheral issues of a legal nature, the heart of all

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MF-2053 | April 18, 2024          Page 5 of 7
       the legal claims […] rest[ed] on whether the Lucases [were], in fact, in default,

       and, if so, what the amount of their debt [was].” Id. at 467.

[9]    Here, we similarly conclude that the case, as a whole, is equitable in nature and

       Colvin’s claims for abuse of process and conversion and the foreclosure action

       are related such that the foreclosure action pulls the legal claims into equity.

       The factual contentions underpinning Colvin’s counterclaims boil down to: (1)

       Taylor petitioned for immediate possession of the property in violation of the

       emergency order staying foreclosures; (2) the trial court scheduled a hearing

       with Colvin’s having only received notice four days previously; (3) when Taylor

       moved for immediate possession of the property, he neglected to file a surety

       bond as required by statute; (4) Colvin did not receive the December 7, 2020

       immediate-possession order until December 17, 2020; (5) the trial court did not

       order that Colvin’s personal property would be considered abandoned to Taylor

       if not removed by December 17, 2020; (6) per statute, the trial court ordered the

       Henry County Sheriff to remove Colvin and his personal property from the

       property; (7) while taking possession of the property, Taylor damaged Colvin’s

       personal property; and (8) Taylor’s actions caused Colvin $1,250,000.00 in

       damages.

[10]   Similar to the Lucases, Colvin essentially claims that, but for Taylor’s allegedly

       unlawful actions in seeking foreclosure and immediate possession of the

       property, he would not have suffered money damages. See Lucas, 953 N.E.2d at

       466. Despite Colvin’s inclusion of two legal claims and a request for legal

       damages among his counterclaims and affirmative defenses, we conclude that

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MF-2053 | April 18, 2024         Page 6 of 7
       the core legal issues overlap with the foreclosure issue to a considerable degree.

       As the trial court noted, Colvin’s “counterclaim[s] arise[] wholly out of Taylor’s

       complaint and actions to take preliminary possession of the property pursuant

       to [the trial court]’s order and are significantly intertwined with Taylor’s

       action[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 168.

[11]   We recognize that the Indiana Constitution protects the right to a trial by jury

       on civil legal claims when the essential features of a suit are not equitable;

       however, our review of this suit leads us to conclude that its essential features

       are equitable. Accordingly, the equitable clean-up doctrine applies and pulls

       Colvin’s legal claims into equity.

[12]   The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

       Altice, C.J., and Felix, J., concur.

       ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
       Ralph E. Sipes
       Anderson, Indiana

       ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
       Richard W. Greeson
       The Law Offices of Wayne Greeson
       Connersville, Indiana

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MF-2053 | April 18, 2024          Page 7 of 7