RESTORATION BUILDERS INC v. BEARD (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Restoration Builders, Inc. (“RBI”), a judgment creditor, appeals the denial of its motion to correct error. RBI challenges the determination that RBI waived the right to collect a judgment for attorney fees obtained through proceedings supplemental. RBI also challenges the determination that it waived the right to pursue a motion for discovery sanctions that might lead to additional attorney fees incurred in collecting that judgment. The trial court based its decision on RBI's failure to timely object to a notice of satisfaction entered by the Hamilton County Clerk, which indicated that Jerry Wayne Beard (“Beard”), the judgment debtor, satisfied the underlying default judgment entered in favor of RBI. Applying Indiana Code section 34-54-6-1(b) and concluding that the notice of satisfaction was limited to the default judgment—not the separate judgment for attorney fees obtained through proceedings supplemental—we conclude that RBI did not waive its right to collect the separate judgment or to seek attorney fees incurred to collect that judgment. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings on RBI's motion for additional attorney fees.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In July 2023, RBI filed a complaint against Beard alleging conversion, theft, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. When Beard did not appear or respond, RBI obtained a default judgment for $64,457.67 (“the Default Judgment”), which included treble damages under the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act, prejudgment interest, attorney fees of $5,955.00, and costs of $385.24. RBI later moved for proceedings supplemental, and a hearing was held in November 2023. At the hearing, RBI's counsel requested permission to submit a supplemental attorney fee affidavit for additional attorney fees incurred after entry of the Default Judgment. The trial court granted this request. On December 7, 2023, RBI's counsel filed an updated affidavit of attorney fees and costs requesting an additional award of attorney fees totaling $13,428.00 and further costs of $269.05. On January 5, 2024, the trial court entered its Final Order in Garnishment, which ordered, in relevant part:

The Updated Affidavit of Attorney Fees and Costs submitted by Plaintiff is allowed and approved by this Court and ordered to be paid by Defendant in addition to the Judgment amount ordered by this Court on August 18, 2023, and for all other relief, just and proper in the premises.

Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 50–51 (emphasis added).

[3] On May 6, 2024, RBI filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions, alleging Beard did not fully respond to certain discovery requests. See id. at 104–15. RBI sought an order compelling full and complete responses to its discovery requests, along with an award of RBI's “reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees for bringing th[e] [m]otion[.]” Id. at 114. About one week later—before a hearing on RBI's motion—Beard paid $57,142.72 to the Hamilton County Clerk's Office, which satisfied the remaining balance of the Default Judgment. On June 5, 2024, the Hamilton County Clerk (“the Clerk”) issued a Notice to Judgment Creditor of Satisfaction of Payment of Judgment Pursuant to Trial Rule 58(D) (“the Clerk's Notice”). The Clerk's Notice stated that, based on a review of payment records, “the judgment and court costs ha[d] been paid in full in the amount of $64,457.67 and the judgment should be satisfied/released.” Id. at 117. The Clerk's Notice also said: “If [RBI] does not respond or file an [o]bjection within 30 days, the [j]udgment shall be deemed satisfied/released and the Clerk shall note the satisfaction/release of the [j]udgment on the Chronological Case Summary (CCS) and on the Judgment Docket.” Id. RBI did not timely respond or object to the Clerk's Notice.

[4] In July 2024, the trial court held a hearing on RBI's motion for discovery sanctions. Shortly thereafter, the trial court issued a written order denying the motion as moot. The court determined that, because RBI “did not object to the Clerk's [N]otice within the prescribed time[,]” RBI's “requests for payment towards additional attorney's fees [were] waived and the judgment [was] satisfied in full.” Id. at 12–13. The trial court added: “Having found the judgment in this matter [was] satisfied, the [c]ourt finds no further need to conduct discovery or impose sanctions.” Id. at 13. RBI timely filed a motion to correct error, asserting the trial court “incorrectly determined that the Clerk's Notice to release the [Default] Judgment” applied to the “additional attorney fees awarded by the Garnishment Order” and “improperly deemed [its] ability to pursue the pending [motion] impermissible.” Id. at 141 (emphasis removed). RBI pointed out that the Clerk's Notice referred only to $64,457.67, which corresponded to the Default Judgment, and “made no mention of the attorney fee award from the Garnishment Order” or of RBI's pending motions. Id. at 143. The trial court denied the motion to correct error. RBI now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] RBI claims the trial court erred in concluding that, because RBI did not timely respond to or object to the Clerk's Notice, RBI waived the right to collect the existing judgment for attorney's fees or to pursue and collect attorney's fees in connection with its pending Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions.

[6] We review the denial of a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Bruder v. Seneca Mortg. Servs., 188 N.E.3d 469, 471 (Ind. 2022). To the extent an appeal involves a question of law, such as the proper interpretation of a judgment, our review on appeal is de novo. R.K.W. Homes, Inc. v. Hutchison, 198 N.E.3d 405, 410 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022); Firestone v. Am. Premier Underwriters, Inc., 891 N.E.2d 151, 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. We interpret clear and unambiguous legal text in a manner consistent with its plain meaning. See, e.g., WEOC, Inc. v. Niebauer, 226 N.E.3d 771, 777 (Ind. 2024) (interpretation of a statute); Firestone, 891 N.E.2d at 154 (interpretation of a judgment); Singh v. Singh, 844 N.E.2d 516, 524 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (interpretation of a contract).

[7] Here, the Clerk's Notice was issued under Trial Rule 58(D), which specifies that, “[b]ased upon a review of the Clerk's payment records, the Clerk may ․ issue a Notice to the judgment creditor that a judgment, including accrued interest and court costs, has been paid in full and that the judgment should be satisfied/released.” The rule further provides that, “[i]f the judgment creditor does not agree that the judgment should be satisfied/released, the judgment creditor shall, within 30 days of the date of the issuance of the Notice, file a verified objection.” Ind. Trial Rule 58(D). Moreover, if the judgment creditor fails to timely object, “the judgment shall be deemed satisfied/released[.]” Id.

[8] Indiana Code section 34-54-6-1 applies to the release of judgments. Notably, this statute allows for partial releases, with subsection (a) providing that the statute “applies to every endorsement of payment, satisfaction, or release, in whole or in part, that is noted ․ on the record or margin of any judgment decree.” Ind. Code § 34-54-6-1(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, subsection (b) states that “[a]n endorsement of payment, satisfaction, or release ․ operates as a satisfaction or release of the judgment or decree, or of the part of the judgment or decree so endorsed as paid, satisfied, or released, in favor of subsequent purchasers or lienholders in good faith.” I.C. § 34-54-6-1(b) (emphasis added).

[9] In this case, the Clerk's Notice specifically identified only “the judgment ․ in the amount of $64,457.67,” which corresponded to the amount of the Default Judgment. Compare Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 117 with id. at 40. The Clerk's Notice indicated that the Default Judgment was paid in full, however, the Clerk's Notice did not refer to the additional attorney fees and costs awarded in the Final Order in Garnishment, nor did the Clerk's Notice refer to RBI's pending motion to recover additional attorney fees as a sanction for alleged discovery violations. The reference to a singular “judgment ․ in the amount of $64,457.67,” id. at 117, is particularly notable in that, in the Final Order in Garnishment, the trial court specified that the amount awarded for attorney fees was “in addition to the Judgment amount ordered by th[e] [c]ourt on August 18, 2023,” i.e., the Default Judgment, id. at 50 (emphasis added). Thus, it is not as though the trial court consolidated Beard's obligations into a single judgment.

[10] We addressed a similar scenario in R.K.W. Homes, Inc. v. Hutchinson, 198 N.E.3d 405 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. In that case, a jury trial was held and a judgment of $58,657.00 was entered against the defendants on October 29, 2021. R.K.W., 198 N.E.3d at 413. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed post-trial motions for prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and legal expenses. Id. While the plaintiff's motions were pending, the defendants filed a notice of satisfaction asserting they “owed $58,657.00 in restitution” and “paid the $58,657.00 in full[.]” Id. The defendants sought to have the judgment docket “update[d] ․ to reflect the satisfaction of the October 29, 2021 judgment.” Id. The trial court granted the request and issued a notice of release of judgment. Id. at 409. The next day, the trial court denied the plaintiff's post-trial motions, concluding “[t]he satisfaction of the judgment extinguished the cause of action” and “there [was] no action on which to award prejudgment interest or attorney fees.” Id. On appeal, we reflected on the language in the defendant's notice, which “did not mention the post-trial motions” and “specified that it was intended to cover only the [$58,657.00]” judgment entered following the jury trial. Id. at 413. Based on the language used, we reversed the trial court, concluding the release applied only to the $58,657.00 judgment and did not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing its post-trial motions. Id. We reached a similar conclusion in RJH of Florida, Inc. v. Summit Account and Computer Services, Inc., 725 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), where the plaintiff executed an ambiguous release of judgment while it had a pending motion to recover appellate attorney fees. Under the circumstances, we determined the release was not a complete release that would preclude recovery on the pending motion. RJH, 725 N.E.2d at 974–75.

[11] Here, the Clerk's Notice used a singular noun—“the judgment”—to identify the released judgment, then specifically referred to the amount of $64,457.67, which was the amount of the Default Judgment. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 117. The plain language reflects a release of the Default Judgment, but not the separate judgment for attorney fees the trial court awarded to RBI in the subsequently issued order on proceedings supplemental. On appeal, Beard claims RBI waived the award of attorney fees because RBI did not file a motion to amend the original judgment so as to incorporate the Final Order in Garnishment. But Beard has not identified, nor are we aware of, any affirmative obligation to seek consolidation of monetary judgments. In general, Trial Rule 58 governs the entry and content of judgments. Notably, this rule sets forth “the ․ elements” of a judgment but does not control the specific form. T.R. 58(B). Furthermore, Trial Rule 58 does not require litigants to specify a form of judgment. See T.R. 58. Rather, “[a]ttorneys may submit suggested forms of judgment to the court[.]” T.R. 58(A) (emphasis added).

[12] For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Clerk's Notice did not result in a release of all judgments in the action, but instead, a release of the Default Judgment alone. We therefore conclude RBI is not precluded from collecting on its separate, existing judgment, or from pursuing proceedings supplemental to collect authorized sums, such as attorney fees, incurred in efforts to collect thereon. We therefore reverse the order denying RBI's motion to correct error and remand for further proceedings on the motion for additional attorney fees.

[13] Reversed and remanded.

Foley, Judge.

Mathias, J. and Felix, J., concur.