Crossroads Family Farms, LLC v. Agrifund, LLC (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 31, 2019
• Docket: 19A-PL-2271
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 31 2019, 9:19 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Bradley J. Buchheit James R. Schrier McNeely Stephenson Reiling Teder & Schrier, LLC Indianapolis, Indiana Lafayette, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Crossroads Family Farms, LLC, December 31, 2019 et al., Court of Appeals Case No. Appellants-Defendants, 19A-PL-2271 Appeal from the Hancock Circuit v. Court The Honorable R. Scott Sirk, Agrifund, LLC Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 30C01-1804-PL-513

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2271 | December 31, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Crossroads Family Farms, LLC (“the LLC”) and Crossroads Family Farms,

Inc. (“the Corporation”) (collectively, “Crossroads”) challenge an order that

Agrifund, LLC (“Agrifund”), holder of a judgment against Central Midwest

Family Farms, General Partnership (“Central Midwest”), may in proceedings

supplemental pursue garnishment of funds that the Corporation may owe the

LLC, a garnishee defendant. Lacking jurisdiction of this discretionary

interlocutory appeal, we dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Central Midwest defaulted on a $1.46 million loan from Agrifund and, on July

12, 2018, Agrifund obtained a judgment against Central Midwest in the amount

of $429,047.93. In proceedings supplemental, Agrifund named the LLC and

the Corporation as garnishee defendants having funds belonging to Central

Midwest. In April of 2019, the trial court issued a garnishment order against

the LLC. Agrifund subsequently alleged that the LLC and the Corporation are

controlled by the same family members and that the Corporation should be

compelled to pay Agrifund any amount it owes or will owe the LLC.

[3] On August 27, 2019, the trial court entered an order providing in relevant part:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that [Agrifund] is entitled to garnish funds that Crossroads Family Farms, Inc. may owe to Crossroads Family Farms, LLC and such claim be and hereby is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2271 | December 31, 2019 Page 2 of 5 granted and set for hearing for Proceeding Supplemental @ 10:00 am on October 15, 2019.

Appealed Order at 1. Crossroads now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [4] “‘It is the duty of this Court to determine whether we have jurisdiction before

proceeding to determine the rights of the parties on the merits.’” DuSablon v.

Jackson Cty. Bank, 132 N.E.3d 69, 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Allstate Ins.

Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d 191, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied). The

appellate authority of this Court is “generally limited to appeals from final

judgments,” although “our Rules of Appellate Procedure also confer appellate

jurisdiction over non-final interlocutory appeals pursuant to Appellate Rule

14.” Ball State University v. Irons, 27 N.E.3d 717, 720 (Ind. 2015).

[5] Here, the parties acknowledge that the challenged order is not a final order.

However, Crossroads contends that the appeal is properly pursued according to

Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A)(1), which provides for an appeal “taken as a

matter of right” from an interlocutory order “for the payment of money.”

Authorization for an interlocutory appeal as of right is to be strictly construed.

Allstate, 801 N.E.2d at 193.

[6] “The matters which are appealable as of right under Appellate Rule [14(A)]

involve trial court orders which carry financial and legal consequences akin to

those more typically found in final judgments: payment of money, issuance of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2271 | December 31, 2019 Page 3 of 5 a debt, delivery of securities, and so on.” State v. Hogan, 582 N.E.2d 824, 825

(Ind. 1991). The “purpose of allowing appeals for the payment of money is to

provide a remedy to parties compelled to part with money which is tied up

awaiting litigation[.]” Schwedland v. Bachman, 512 N.E.2d 445, 450 (Ind. Ct.

App. 1987). Some examples include: Ferguson v. Estate of Ferguson, 40 N.E.3d

881, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (an order that a litigant deposit a bond payment

in excess of one million dollars with the trial court clerk within thirty days, to

stay the sale of a farm, an act that could not be undone if it occurred); Estate of

Meyer, 702 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (order to pay death taxes), trans.

denied; Lamon v. Lamon, 611 N.E.2d 154 (Ind Ct. App. 1993) (order to pay child

support); Schwedland, 512 N.E2d at 445 (order to deliver check into court); State

v Kuespert, 425 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (order to pay attorney’s fees as

a sanction under Trial Rule 37).

[7] Crossroads’s interlocutory appeal cannot be taken as a matter of right because

the trial court’s order did not “directly order one of the parties to pay a sum to

another party or into court.” Schwedland, 512 N.E.2d at 449. Crossroads was

not prevented from “the use of its money during pending litigation.” Id. at 450.

Instead, the trial court determined that Agrifund could pursue garnishment in

proceedings supplemental against Crossroads. As such, Crossroads was

required to appear at a hearing at which Agrifund might establish that certain

funds existed for garnishment. And Crossroads did not seek certification of this

discretionary interlocutory appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B). This

Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2271 | December 31, 2019 Page 4 of 5 and therefore we may dismiss upon our own motion. See Moser v. Moser, 838

N.E.2d 532, 534 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

[8] Dismissed.

Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2271 | December 31, 2019 Page 5 of 5