Prime Mortgage USA, Inc. (“Prime”), and David Law (referred to collectively as the “Defendants”) appeal following the trial court’s order of default judgments in favor of Delie Nichols as a penalty for the Defendants’ discovery violations. The trial court held a hearing on damages, and awarded roughly eight million dollars to Nichols. In a subsequent proceedings supplemental, the trial court issued an order of garnishment on a life insurance policy held by Law. The issues here are:
1. Whether Nichols’s claim under Indiana Code section 34-24-3-1 (the “Crime Victims Statute”) is barred by the statute of limitations;
2. Whether the Defendants were entitled to a jury trial on the amount of damages under the Crime Victims Statute;
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering default judgments as a sanction for discovery violations;
4. Whether the trial court’s award of damages was proper and supported by the evidence;
5. Whether sufficient evidence existed to hold the Defendants liable under the Crime Victims Statute;
6. Whether the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees was improper;
7. Whether the trial court improperly determined that Nichols’s unpaid compensation constituted “wages” under Indiana Code sections 22-2-5-1 and –2;
8. Whether Nichols’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands; and
9. Whether the trial court’s garnishment order was improper under either Indiana Code section 27-1-12-14(e) or Indiana Code section 27-1-12-17.1(f).
Conclusion (slip op. at 66-67): We conclude that Nichols’s claims were not barred by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of unclean hands and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendants’ request for a jury trial or in entering a default judgment based on the Defendants’ discovery violations. We further conclude that the trial court’s award of damages was within the scope of the evidence. We also conclude that Nichols’s compensation constitutes a “wage” for purposes of the Wage Payment Statute. However, we conclude that it was improper to grant a judgment against Prime on Nichols’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and reverse the trial court’s order in this regard. Finally, we remand with instructions that the trial court determine whether any of Law’s life insurance policy is exempt from execution. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Powered by Compendium
Comments for Affirms trial court order of all but one of default judgments in favor of plaintiff as a penalty for defendant's discovery violations