Legal Opinion

Rose v. Mercantile National Bank of Hammond

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 2007No. 56S03-0608-CV-303PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

Judgment creditor pursued the two shareholders of the judgment debtor through a proceeding supplemental contending fraudulent transfer, then amended the complaint to bring a new tort claim, as well. The trial court allowed the amendment and granted summary judgment to the creditor, awarding attorneys’ fees and treble damages far in excess of the original judgment. Proceedings supplemental are only for collecting existing judgments, not for seeking new ones, so we reverse the trial court’s grant of leave to amend the complaint.

Facts and Procedural History

Appellees…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Burkett v. HolmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Arnold v. DirrimIndiana Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. McMahan v. WorksIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Beavans v. GroffIndiana Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. HowesIndiana Supreme Court · 1879

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Boyer v. Crown Stock Distribution, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009
  2. Deborah Klein v. Douglas WeidnerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
  3. Lei Shi v. Cecilia YiIndiana Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. The Branham Corporation v. Newland Resources, LLC and John E. BatorIndiana Court of Appeals · 2015
  5. Hoesman v. ShefflerIndiana Court of Appeals · 2008

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API