This is a continued report on the pair of Branham cases, which have moved their way from the Perry Circuit Court to the Indiana Court of Appeals and most recently to the Indiana Supreme Court. The cases deal with proceedings supplemental and garnishment, and they were the subject of my July 14, 2011 post "Indiana Trial Court Oversteps Its Authority In Proceedings Supplemental."
The Indiana Supreme Court handed down its decisions in the two matters on August 30, 2011: .pdf1 and .pdf2. This means that the two opinions cited in my July 14th post have been vacated. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals with regard to (1) the reversal of the trial's court's order requiring the judgment debtor to seek employment or to seek better employment and (2) the upholding of the trial court's order for the judgment debtor to return to court for status checks "some limited number of times."
But the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals and reversed the trial court's decision requiring the judgment debtor to pay $50 per month toward the judgment. "For unrepresented parties in small claims court, resort to the generic exemption statute and the Social Security exemptions are not forfeited even if the litigants do no know enough to plead them."
Again, the Branham opinions provide a good explanation of the purpose and scope of proceedings supplemental and garnishment, and they provide insight into the rights and remedies associated with a secured lender's effort to collect a deficiency judgment.