Timothy M. Rueth, Appellant-Defendant v. Centier Bank, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In 2009, Centier Bank brought a mortgage-foreclosure action against several defendants, including Timothy M. Rueth. The trial court awarded Centier a judgment of $3,634,760.49 against Rueth, and Centier initiated proceedings supplemental to collect on the judgment. In 2012, as part of the proceedings supplemental, the trial court issued a “charging order” allowing Centier to collect against Rueth's interest in Nondorf Farms, LLC. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 pp. 105-07. Rueth didn't challenge that order through a motion to correct error or an appeal.

[2] The chronological case summary shows a variety of activity from 2012 through 2018 and then a break from 2018 until 2023. In July 2023, Centier initiated further proceedings supplemental based in part on the 2012 charging order. In response, Rueth filed a pro se motion that Centier and the trial court treated as a Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside the charging order. Rule 60(B) lists 8 reasons for setting aside a judgment and provides that a motion “shall be filed within a reasonable time for reasons (5), (6), (7), and (8), and not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken for reasons (1), (2), (3), and (4).” The trial court denied Rueth's motion as untimely, having been filed more than 11 years after the charging order was issued.

[3] Rueth now appeals. He offers several arguments for why the trial court should have granted his motion to set aside the 2012 charging order, but only one addresses the court's conclusion that the motion was untimely. Rueth states:

The Court's order focuses on no Trial 60 B motion being filed within reasonable time but did not study the reasonable time issue, it simply said this many years is too long to not have filed. Centier received its attachment on January 23, 2012 and did not file its Proceeding Supplemental for In Rem Turnover Order until July of 2023. Apparently, Centier did not file sooner because it was constrained from doing so due to various legal stoppages including Rueth's Chapter 7 filing. Rueth was also subject to the stoppages. The reasonable time period rule in the T.R. 60 B was not addressed in light of judicial delays. (Ind Trial Rule 60(B)(8) Significantly nor was the rule addressed in light of DeBonis being a no-show and not trying to do anything about being a no-show. DeBonis and Centier worked together to aid Centier and injure Rueth. This not only injured Rueth but also his wife, Susan and their children, Anne, Mike, Kate and Jeff. Each time Centier used the 1/23/201[2] Order it committed fraud – the dates being 9/22/2023, 9/24/2024 and 12/3/2024. No date is outside the limitations for fraud.

Appellant's Br. pp. 12-13. This argument and his other arguments aren't supported by cogent reasoning, citations to relevant legal authority, or citations to the record, all of which are required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Therefore, we agree with Centier that he has waived his arguments, and we affirm the trial court's denial of his motion.

[4] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Felix, J., concur.