Zachariah B. Wright, Appellant v. Adrienne Bonty, Appellee (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Zachariah B. Wright appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint based on the statute of limitations. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 21, 2025, Wright filed a “Civil Complaint” alleging that “Adrienne Bonty, on or about June 18[,] 2017, was approached by an individual, Fredrick Barnard, who suggested to her, that she, with a reckless disregard for truth or falsity, told police that [Wright] had broke into her vehicle and stole her keys.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 17. He further alleged that, “[s]hortly after speaking with Fredrick Barnard, [Bonty], while entertaining serious doubts as to the truth of her statements, told police that it was her keys that were stolen by [Wright]” and that “Bonty, in complex actions of evasion, has tried to conceal the facts of the person entitled to bring suit, and furthermore, [Wright] only recently discovered such cause of action.” Id. The complaint stated: “Cause of Action 1) Defamation, Slander.” Id. Under the heading “Damages,” it stated, “For Cause of action #1, $1,000,000.” Id. at 18. On August 15, 2025, Wright filed a motion for default judgment.

[3] On August 18, 2025, Bonty filed an answer and affirmative defenses, a response to the motion for default judgment, and a motion to dismiss pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Bonty asserted an affirmative defense that Wright failed to bring his action within the applicable statute of limitations. In her response to the motion for default judgment, Bonty argued that Wright failed to properly serve her and that he was not entitled to default judgment. In her motion to dismiss, Bonty argued that Wright's complaint “alleges conduct of [Bonty] that is the basis of his counts of defamation and slander which occurred on or about June 18, 2017,” and that “[t]he statute of limitations for a cause concerning injury to a person, such as for defamation or slander, is two (2) years pursuant to Ind. Code 34-11-2-4.” Id. at 8. Bonty also filed a brief in support of her motion to dismiss arguing that Wright “vaguely implies in his Complaint that [she] concealed facts and that [he] only recently discovered ‘such cause of action’, but provides no date upon which the statement was discovered” and that, “based solely on the allegations contained in [his] Complaint, any cause of action for defamation or slander accrued on or about June 17, 2017, almost 8 years prior to the filing of [his] Complaint.” Id. at 11-12. On August 19, 2025, the court denied Wright's motion for default judgment. Wright filed a response to Bonty's motion to dismiss arguing that he “alleged, clearly and concisely, that [Bonty] took step[s] to hide her wrongful acts.” Id. at 14.

[4] On September 29, 2025, the trial court issued an Order of Dismissal which found that Wright's complaint was not filed within the statute of limitations and granted Bonty's motion to dismiss.

Discussion

[5] Wright, pro se, refers to the allegation in his complaint that Bonty, “in complex actions of evasion, has tried to conceal the facts of the person entitled to bring suit” and argues “[t]he facts, as stated, derive from [Bonty's] calculated intent to dishonestly and fraudulently obtain criminal charges against [him] while attempting to exclude suspicion.” Appellant's Brief at 6-7. He argues “[t]he doctrine of fraudulent concealment is well established in Indiana Law” and “[t]he Trial Court, while failing to cite any case precedent or law, has dangerously shredded and discarded decades or even centuries of established doctrine.” Id. at 7.

[6] A motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Price v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 80 N.E.3d 170, 173 (Ind. 2017). We review a trial court's grant or denial of a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion de novo. Id. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted is an appropriate means of raising the statute of limitations. Brown v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 85 N.E.3d 866, 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

[7] Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4 provides that an action for “injury to person or character” must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues. Statutes of limitations are favored because they afford security against stale claims and promote the peace and welfare of society. William F. Braun Milk Hauling, Inc. v. Malanoski, 192 N.E.3d 213, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). They are enacted upon the presumption that one having a well-founded claim will not delay in enforcing it. Id. A cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when a claimant knows or in exercise of ordinary diligence should have known of the injury. Id. The claimant bears the burden of bringing suit against the proper party within the statute of limitations. Id. The doctrine of fraudulent concealment is an equitable remedy that bars a statute-of-limitations defense when the defendant who invokes it prevented the plaintiff from discovering an otherwise valid claim. Blackford v. Welborn Clinic, 172 N.E.3d 1219, 1229 (Ind. 2021).

[8] Wright's complaint, filed on March 21, 2025, alleged that Bonty made certain statements constituting defamation or slander on or about June 18, 2017. Wright's cause of action accrued when he knew or in the exercise of ordinary diligence should have known of the injury. Wright does not allege when he learned of Bonty's statements or his claimed injury or how Bonty prevented him from discovering an otherwise valid claim. We observe that Wright was charged and convicted with the theft of Bonty's keys as a level 6 felony under Count XVII in cause number 06D01-1706-MR-1078 (“Cause No. 1078”).¹ The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Wright's convictions in its opinion dated May 4, 2021. See Wright v. State, 168 N.E.3d 244, 270 (Ind. 2021). We conclude that Wright did not file his complaint within two years after the cause of action accrued and that the trial court did not err in granting Bonty's motion to dismiss.

[9] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Bonty has filed a Motion for Judicial Notice asking this Court to take notice of the judgment of conviction and sentence in Cause No. 1078. She argues, “Wright was convicted of Count XVII, which was theft of [her] keys, a Level 6 Felony (as noted on pages 1, 8 and 9),” “[s]aid conviction has not been overturned,” and “Wright's sentence was slightly modified on remand after appeal, but his conviction as to Count XVII was not affected.” Appellee's Motion for Judicial Notice at 2. We grant Bonty's motion. The sentencing order in Cause No. 1078, attached to Bonty's motion, indicates that Wright was convicted of multiple crimes including murder, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, criminal confinement, burglary, theft of a bicycle, and theft of Bonty's car keys. See Exhibit A (January 3, 2020 sentencing order), Appellee's Motion for Judicial Notice. Wright ultimately received an aggregate sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole with a consecutive term of eighteen years. Exhibit B (May 6, 2021 order on remand), Appellee's Motion for Judicial Notice.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.