author: BARNES, Judge.

text:
    James M. BRINKLEY, Stephanie L. Brinkley, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. Michael HALUSKA, P.E., d/b/a Retro Tech, et al., Appellees-Defendants.
    No. 32A01-1204-MI-181.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Dec. 28, 2012.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 2013.
    Gregory W. Black, The Black Law Office, Plainfield, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
    Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Elizabeth Rogers, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

      Norman L. Burggraf, Jr., Elkhart, IN, Attorney for Appellee, Donald Gindelber-ger.
   OPINION

BARNES, Judge.

Case Summary

James Brinkley III and Stephanie Brinkley (collectively, the “Brinkleys”) appeal the trial court’s judgment for the State of Indiana by its Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) and Donald Gindelber-ger in their action against the BMV, Gin-delberger, Michael Haluska, d/b/a Retro Tech, Retro Tech Auto Restoration, Inc., (collectively, “Haluska”), and Mechanic’s Lien Plus, Inc. We affirm.

Issues

The Brinkleys raises several issues, which we restate as:

I. whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Gin-delberger because he was a bona fide purchaser for value; and
II. whether the trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings to the BMV because the BMV was entitled to immunity.

Facts

In May 2005, James was issued a certificate of title for a 1965 Chevrolet Corvette. In September 2006, the Brinkleys entered into a contract with Haluska for the restoration of the vehicle for $12,500 plus parts and additional expenses. Haluska is in the automotive restoration business, not in the business of selling vehicles. The Brinkleys paid Haluska $10,817 and spent $6,000 on parts and incidentals. However, the parties eventually had a disagreement about Haluska’s work and the amount of money the Brinkleys still owed. In November 2008, Haluska, who still had possession of the vehicle, threatened to file a mechanic’s lien on the vehicle if the Brinkleys failed to pay an additional $1,500. The parties continued arguing about the vehicle and Ha-luska’s work.

Haluska apparently hired Mechanic’s Lien Plus to file a lien on the vehicle. On July 24, 2009, Mechanic’s Lien Plus sent a certified notice to James at a residence on Victoria Drive in Indianapolis, which is the address listed on the BMV’s title records for the vehicle and is the address of James’s father. James, however, lives at a residence on East 75th Street in Indianapolis. The notice provided that the vehicle would be sold at a public auction on August 28, 2009, if James did not recover the vehicle by paying charges of $7,400. James did not receive the notice of the sale. The certified notice was marked “return to sender, no such number, unable to forward” and was returned. App. p. 195. Mechanic’s Lien Plus advertised the sale in an Indianapolis newspaper on July 25, 2009, through July 31, 2009. At the August 28, 2009 auction, Haluska purchased the vehicle for $100. However, for unknown reasons, Mechanic’s Lien Plus sent a second certified notice to James at the Victoria Drive address on November 10, 2009, and James did receive this notice. The second notice stated that the vehicle would be sold at public auction on November 16, 2009, if James did not pay the charges.

On November 20, 2009, the Brinkleys filed a complaint for injunctive relief and damages against Haluska. They requested injunctive relief to bar the sale of the vehicle and to regain possession of the vehicle. On the same day, Haluska filed an application for certificate of title with the BMV regarding the vehicle. Haluska stated on the application that he purchased the vehicle on August 28, 2009, for $100. On November 23, 2009, the BMV issued a certificate of title to Haluska for the vehicle. Haluska was served with the Brink-leys’ complaint on December B, 2009.

Haluska then listed the vehicle for sale on eBay. Gindelberger had substantial experience on eBay and had purchased ten to fifteen other vehicles on eBay. On December 13, 2009, Gindelberger bid $25,100 on the vehicle and was the winning bidder. Gindelberger requested and received the certificate of title showing Haluska as the owner. Gindelberger did not examine the Hendricks County court records prior to purchasing the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to Gindelberger on December 14, 2009, and Gindelberger paid Haluska.

After a December 17, 2009 preliminary hearing, the trial court granted the injunction, ordered Haluska not to transfer title or deliver a signed title to the vehicle to any third party, and ordered the BMV not to issue a new title to the vehicle until further order. On December 18, 2009, the Brinkleys filed an amended complaint, and on December 30, 2009, they filed a second amended complaint, adding claims against the BMV, eBay, and Gindelberger. The amended complaint alleged that Gindelber-ger was “not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.” Id. at 50. It also requested injunctive relief against the BMV to prevent the transfer of title. Gin-delberger then filed a cross-claim against Haluska. On May 10, 2010, the Brinkleys filed a tort claims notice against the BMV and/or the State of Indiana.

In August 2010, the Brinkleys filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Gindelberger. In September 2010, Gindelberger filed a response to the motion for partial summary judgment and also filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. On October 4, 2010, the Brinkleys filed a response to Gindelber-ger’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The Brinkleys also filed a third amended complaint against Haluska, Retro Tech, the BMV, Gindelberger, and Mechanic’s Lien Plus, in which the Brinkleys sought damages for breach, fraud, theft, and an injunction against Haluska and damages for negligence against Mechanic’s Lien Plus.

On October 27, 2010, the Brinkleys filed a “Hearing Brief.” Id. at 11. After an October 27, 2010 hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Indiana Code Section 26-1-2-403(2) and Indiana Code Section 26-1-2-403(3) were inapplicable because Haluska was not in the business of selling Corvettes. However, the trial court concluded that Indiana Code Section 26-1-2-403(1) was applicable because Gindelberger was a good faith purchaser for value. The trial court granted summary judgment to Gin-delberger and also apparently struck the Brinkleys’ Hearing Brief.

In July 2011, the BMV filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The BMV argued that it was entitled to immunity pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3. The Brinkleys filed a response, arguing that the BMV improperly issued a certificate of title to Haluska because the notice to the Brinkleys was not proper or timely. After a hearing, the trial court granted the BMTVs motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In February 2012, a bench trial was held with the remaining parties, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Brinkleys and against Haluska, Retro Tech, and Mechanic’s Lien Plus. On March 1, 2012, the Brinkleys filed a motion to correct error regarding the summary judgment for Gindelberger and the judgment on the pleadings for the BMV, which the trial court denied. The Brinkleys now appeal.

Analysis

I. Claim against Gindelberger

The Brinkleys argue that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to Gindelberger because he was not a good faith purchaser for value. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56. We liberally construe all designated evidentiary material in a light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Bradshaw v. Chandler, 916 N.E.2d 163, 166 (Ind.2009). The party that lost in the trial court has the burden of persuading the appellate court that the trial court erred. Id. Our review of a summary judgment motion is limited to those materials designated to the trial court. Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Ind.2001).

Legal title to a vehicle is governed by the sales provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) rather than the Indiana Certificate of Title Act. Marlow v. Conley, 787 N.E.2d 490, 496-97 (Ind.Ct. App.2003). Thus, the issue is whether Gindelberger obtained good title to the vehicle from Haluska pursuant to Indiana Code Section 26-1-2-403(1), which provides:

A purchaser of goods acquires all title which the purchaser’s transferor had or had power to transfer, except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase, the purchaser has such power even though:
(a)the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser; or
(b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored; or
(c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a “cash sale”; or
(d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as theft under the criminal law.

We noted in Marlow, 787 N.E.2d at 493, that, under Indiana Code Section 26-1-2-403(1), a defrauding buyer obtains voidable title and has the power to transfer good title to a good faith purchaser for value. The Brinkleys do not dispute that Haluska had voidable, rather than void, title. Their only argument is that Gindelberger was not a good faith purchaser for value.

“Good faith” is defined as “honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.” Ind. Code § 26-1-1-201(19). We addressed the good faith purchaser for value requirements in Marlow, 787 N.E.2d at 495-99. There, Conley sold a truck to the Medleys at a car show. Conley claimed that he owned a car lot. When Conley gave the Medleys the certificate of title, Marlow was listed as the truck’s owner, and Conley assured the Medleys that “Marlow had signed the title as part of a deal Conley made with him.” Marlow, 787 N.E.2d at 491. The Medleys then applied for a certificate of title in their name. Marlow later filed a complaint against Conley and the Medleys and alleged that Conley had stolen the vehicle. At the trial, evidence was presented that Marlow told the police he had a business deal with Conley involving the sale of the truck to Conley but that Conley failed to perform his end of the deal. As between the Medleys and Mar-low, the trial court entered judgment for the Medleys.

On appeal, we affirmed, holding that the Medleys were good faith purchasers for value under Indiana Code Section 26-1-2-403(1). Marlow’s only argument was that the Medleys did not purchase the truck in good faith because the certificate of title was signed by Marlow, not Conley. We noted that Conley had failed to comply with the statutory requirements by selling the truck to the Medleys without first transferring the title to his own name. However, we held that the Medleys’ failure to demand a proper certificate of title did not affect their status as good faith purchasers. Although the failure to comply with the statutory requirements regarding the certificate of title “may, combined with other suspicious circumstances, raise questions about a purchaser’s good faith,” we found no such other circumstances. Id. at 497-98. We also noted the purpose of Indiana Code Section 26-1-2^108(1), which was intended to determine the priorities between the two innocent parties:

(1) the original owner who parts with his goods through fraudulent conduct of another and (2) an innocent third party who gives value for the goods to the perpetrator of the fraud without knowledge of the fraud. By favoring the innocent third party, the Uniform Commercial Code endeavors to promote the flow of commerce by placing the burden of ascertaining and preventing fraudulent transactions on the one in the best position to prevent them, the original seller.

Id. at 498 (quoting Mowan v. Anweiler, 454 N.E.2d 436, 439 (Ind.Ct.App.1983)). “The policy behind the UCC is to favor the Medleys because, as between the Medleys and Marlow, Marlow was in the best position to prevent the fraudulent transaction.” Id. We concluded that the Medleys were good faith purchasers for value. Thus, Conley, as a defrauding buyer, possessed voidable title and transferred good title to the Medleys as good faith purchasers for value.

Here, according to the Brinkleys, Gindelberger was not a good faith purchaser because he had constructive notice of their lawsuit against Haluska, which was already in progress when Haluska sold the vehicle on eBay. In support of their constructive notice argument, the Brinkleys rely on cases involving real estate transactions. For example, in the real estate context, a purchaser is presumed to have examined the records in the chain of title and is charged with actual or constructive notice of all such properly recorded instruments. See Bank of New York v. Nally, 820 N.E.2d 644, 648-49 (Ind.2005). Further, lis pendens notices provide constructive notice of pending lawsuits that affect an interest in real estate. See Clarkson v. Neff, 878 N.E.2d 240, 243 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied. “If a lis pendens notice is properly filed on the public records, a subsequent purchaser will take the property subject to a judgment in the pending claim.” hi at 244 (quoting MDM Inv. v. City of Carmel, 740 N.E.2d 929, 934 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2000)). However, we do not find the Brinkleys’ argument persuasive. There is no “lis pendens notice” for automobiles, and the Brinkleys cite no authority requiring Gindelberger to search pending litigation records prior to purchasing a vehicle. Likewise, our research reveals no such requirement.

The Brinkleys also argue that Gindel-berger failed to “get to know” Haluska as recommended by eBay. Prior to buying an automobile through an eBay auction, eBay recommends that a purchaser should “[g]et to know your seller,” check the seller’s “Feedback rating,” and contact “the seller with any questions.” App. p. 115. Haluska had a 100% positive feedback rating. The Brinkleys do not explain how “getting to know” Haluska was required to obtain status as a good faith purchaser. eBay’s recommendations are just that— recommendations.

We conclude that the trial court properly found Gindelberger to be a good faith purchaser for value. As in Marlow, between the Brinkleys or Gindelberger, the Brinkleys were in the best position to prevent this allegedly fraudulent transaction. Because Gindelberger was a good faith purchaser for value, Haluska transferred good title to him. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to Gindelber-ger.

II. Claim against BMV

Next, the Brinkleys argue that the trial court erred by granting the BMV’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a Trial Rule 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings. Murray v. City of Lawrenceburg, 925 N.E.2d 728, 731 (Ind.2010). We accept as true the well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint, and base our ruling solely on the pleadings. Id. “A Rule 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings is to be granted ‘only where it is clear from the face of the complaint [and answer] that under no circumstances could relief be granted.’ ” Id. (quoting Forte v. Connerwood Healthcare, Inc., 745 N.E.2d 796, 801 (Ind.2001)).

According to the Brinkleys, the BMV improperly issued a certifícate of title for the vehicle to Haluska. The Brinkleys contend that the BMV should have been aware that the Brinkleys did not receive proper notice of the auction and that the BMV acted arbitrarily. The BMV argues that it is entitled to immunity pursuant to the Indiana Tort Claims Act (“ITCA”) for issuing the certificate of title.

“ ‘A traditional formulation of tort liability requires the plaintiff to establish a duty, breach of that duty, proximate cause, and damages.’ ” Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Roach-Walker, 917 N.E.2d 1224, 1225 (Ind.2009) (quoting 1 Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 114, at 269 (2001)). “Immunity trumps all of these and bars recovery even where ordinary tort principles would impose liability.” Id. “Thus, for example, the government and its employees are immune from liability for the ‘initiation of a judicial or an administrative proceeding,’ even if the action was taken in breach of a duty to act competently and in the public interest.” Id. at 1225-26 (quoting I.C. § 34-13-3-3(6) (2008)). Whether an immunity applies is a matter of law for the courts to decide. Id. at 1226. The party seeking immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity. Id.

The ITCA provides that governmental entities may be liable for torts committed by their agencies and employees. Flynn v. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 716 N.E.2d 988, 990 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied. However, the ITCA protects governmental entities from liability if the tor-tious conduct falls within certain statutorily enumerated exceptions found in Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3, which provides, in part:

A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee’s employment is not liable if a loss results from the following:
⅜ ⅜ ⅜ # #
(11) The issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of, or failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization, where the authority is discretionary under the law.

The BMV argues that, pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-8(11), it is entitled to immunity because the issuance of the certificate of title was discretionary.

We addressed a similar issue in Flynn, 716 N.E.2d at 991-92. There, Flynn purchased a vehicle and applied to the BMV for a certificate of title, which the BMV issued. The vehicle was later confiscated because it was stolen. Flynn filed an action against the BMV, arguing that it negligently issued the certificate of title. The BMV moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under the ITCA, and the trial court granted summary judgment to the BMV.

On appeal, we affirmed the trial court’s order. We noted, in part, that Indiana Code Section 9-17-2-10 provides: “If the bureau is satisfied that the person applying for a certificate of title is the owner of the vehicle, the bureau may issue a certificate of title for the vehicle.” Id. at 991. The “[u]se of the term ‘may’ ordinary connotes discretion.” Id. Accordingly, we concluded that “the issuance of certificates of title by the BMV is discretionary within the meaning of IC 34-13-3-3(10)[] in absence of other indications to the contrary.” Id.

Flynn relied on other statutory provisions to argue that the BMV did not have such discretion. Flynn relied, in part, on Indiana Code Section 9-17-2-8, which provided that the BMV “shall use reasonable diligence in determining if the facts stated in an application for a certificate of title are true.” Id. We rejected that argument and held “the BMV may not exercise this discretion arbitrarily, and a person may seek judicial review of an agency action that constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 992 (citing I.C. § 4-21.5-5-14(d)(l)). Further, “the fact that the BMV is required to exercise diligence in determining the truth of the fact stated in an application is consistent with the idea that the BMV may not act arbitrarily.” Id. We concluded that the BMV was immune from liability for losses resulting from the issuance or denial of a certificate of title, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment.

The Brinkleys argue that, regardless of Indiana Code Section 9-17-2-10, the BMV lacked such discretion due to Indiana Code Section 9-22-5-15(i), which, at the time of the issuance of the certificate of title, provided:

A person who holds a mechanic’s lien under this section shall execute and deliver to the purchaser of a vehicle under this section a sales certificate in the form designated by the bureau, setting forth the following information:
(1) The facts of the sale.
(2) The vehicle identification number.
(3) The certificate of title if available.
(4) A certificate from the newspaper showing that the advertisement was made as required under subsection (d).
Whenever the bureau receives from the purchaser an application for certificate of title accompanied by these items, the bureau shall issue a certificate of title for the vehicle under IC 9-17.

I.C. § 9-22-5-15 (repealed by Pub.L. No. 125-2012, § 155 (eff. July 1, 2012)) (emphasis added); see now I.C. § 9-22-1-21.5(i). Although Indiana Code Section 9-22-5-15 used the word “shall,” it also required that the BMV issue the certificate of title under Indiana Code Article 9-17, which includes Indiana Code Section 9-17-2-10. Again, that statute gives the BMV discretion to issue a certifícate of title.

The Brinkleys also focus on our holding that the BMV may not exercise its discretion “arbitrarily,” but they ignore the remainder of the holding, which is that the aggrieved person may seek judicial review — not file an action for negligence, which is the route attempted by the Brink-leys. Contrary to the Brinkleys’ argument, we find little to differentiate this case from Flynn. Consequently, we conclude that the BMV is immune from liability pursuant to the ITCA, and trial court properly granted the BMVs motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Conclusion

The trial court properly granted summary judgment to Gindelberger, and the trial court properly granted the BMV’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.

Affirmed.

VAIDIK, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.

      . This statute was amended in 2009. See Pub. L. No. 135-2009, § 1 (eff. July 1, 2009). It previously read: " ‘Good Faith,’ means honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned.”

      . The Brinkleys also briefly argue that the trial court abused its discretion by striking its hearing brief, which was filed on the day of the summary judgment hearing. Even assuming the trial court erred though, the Brinkleys have not shown that their substantial rights were affected. See Ind. Trial Rule 61. Even if we consider the Brinkleys' hearing brief, we still conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Gin-delberger.

      . See now Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3(11).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: RILEY, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    George Dean KING, Appellant-Defendant, v. Kay S. KING, et al., Appellees-Plaintiffs.
    No. 49A02-1202-MF-73.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Jan. 15, 2013.
    Rehearing Denied March 6, 2013.

      Alan S. Brown, Julia Blackwell Gelinas, Darren A. Craig, Frost Brown Todd, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
    Jon Laramore, David R. Hamer, Teresa A. Griffin, Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellees.
   OPINION

RILEY, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant-Defendant, George Dean King (George), appeals the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law approving the Receiver’s Verified Final Accounting relating to the receivership of eight business entities founded by George W. King (George Sr.) and the distribution of the receivership assets among George Sr.’s three children, George, Robert King (Bob), and Kay S. King (Kay) (collectively, the Siblings).

We affirm.

ISSUES

George raises four issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:

(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by approving the elimination of certain inter-company accounts receivable belonging to Crown Associates, Inc. (Crown) pri- or to conveying Crown to George;
(2) Whether the trial court properly decided that the Receiver was not required to reimburse World Corporation (World) for tax payments relating to intercompany accounts pri- or to conveying World to George;
(8) Whether the trial court properly applied the Receiver’s approved Plan of Distribution, which required that any beneficiary who unsuccessfully appealed a Receiver’s action pursuant to the Plan bears the Receiver’s legal costs of the appeal; and
(4) Whether the trial court properly released the Receiver from liability for all actions taken during the pen-dency of the receivership.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises out of a dispute concerning the ownership of several corporations and partnerships between Kay and her minor son, Christopher King (Christopher), on one side and Kay’s brothers, George and Bob, on the other side. Throughout his lifetime, George Sr., the Siblings’ father, established several companies. In 1949, he founded G.W. King as a for-profit Indiana corporation. He subsequently incorporated R.L. King, Inc. and K.S. King, Inc. as Indiana for-profit corporations in 1963; World as an Indiana for-profit corporation in 1981; and Crown as a Florida corporation in 1989. He also founded three limited partnerships, G.W. King Co., R.L. King Co., and N.E. King, Co. In 1999, Kay lived with George Sr. in his Indianapolis’ residence and worked for his investment company. The Siblings had a strained relationship and Kay and George often quarreled over who would control George Sr.’s multimillion dollar estate after his death.

George Sr. died in 2001. A couple of weeks prior to George Sr.’s death, George shot Kay and Christopher multiple times. George was subsequently charged with and convicted of two Counts of attempted murder and is currently serving a fifty-year prison sentence. See King v. State, 799 N.E.2d 42, 46 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied, cert, denied, 543 U.S. 817, 125 S.Ct. 54, 160 L.Ed.2d 24 (2004).

On April 4, 2003, Kay and Christopher filed a Complaint on behalf of themselves, as well as K.S. King Co. and C.K. Co. (collectively, Appellees) against George, Bob, and the five corporations, G.W. King, Inc., K.S. King, Inc., R.L. King, Inc., Crown, and World, and the three partnerships, G.W. King Co., R.L. King, Co., and N.E. King Co. (collectively, the Receivership Entities). The Complaint alleged thirteen different counts and sought a determination on the ownership of certain Receivership Entities, dissolution of the Receivership Entities, and the appointment of a Receiver to manage the dissolution, winding up and accounting of the Entities.

On June 5, 2003, the trial court appointed John M. Davis as the Receiver and directed him “to immediately recover, receive, take charge and possession of the business, cash, assets, leases, general intangible[s], accounts, proceeds from sales, note[s], bills receivable, and choses in action, and all of the tangible and intangible property and records ...” of the Receivership Entities. (Appellant’s App. p. 135). The trial court’s order permitted the Receiver to obtain the necessary insurance, open bank accounts, invest assets, determine any taxes owed, and “take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate to prevent the dissipation or concealment of any funds or assets.” (Appellant’s App. pp. 136-37). The order also mandated the Receiver to take custody of the business records of the Receivership Entities, to recommend the disposition of their assets, and allowed him to “initiate legal actions as he deems appropriate in discharging his duties as Receiver.” (Appellant’s App. pp. 138-39).

The Receiver spent more than five years, well into 2008, marshalling the assets of the Receivership Entities and addressing related tax issues. In 2004, the Receiver filed numerous tax returns for the Receivership Entities and paid more than two million dollars in outstanding tax liabilities. To pay these liabilities, the Receiver drew on Crown’s assets as this company had more liquid assets available than the other Receivership Entities. The Receiver accounted for his use of Crown assets to pay the tax obligations owed by other Receivership Entities by crediting an account receivable in favor of Crown with corresponding payables charged to the Receivership or the Receivership Entities. These “intercompany accounts [were] the result of the operation, management, and paying taxes by the [Receivership for the affiliated companies.” (Transcript p. 51). At the beginning, Crown’s accounts receivable was valued at $437,512; in 2007, it stood at $687,278.

On February 22, 2005, the Siblings entered into a Term Sheet for Settlement of Litigation (Term Sheet), which represented their partial agreement on the broad outlines of asset distribution. The Term Sheet constructed a complex distribution scheme in which the allocation of certain specific assets to certain Siblings was contemplated instead of equally dividing the receivership assets among the Siblings. For example, the Term Sheet provided that

The assets and/or equity interest of [Crown] shall be conveyed by the Receiver to [George], free and clear of any claims that were asserted or could have been asserted by any plaintiffs or any defendants in the King Receivership Litigation, subject only to claims for any unpaid taxes and the claims of third-party creditors of [Crown].

(Appellant’s App. p. 363). It also gave George a condominium in the Geist neighborhood of Marion County, a lakefront lot in the same area, and three automobiles. Because not all issues over the division of receivership assets were resolved in the Term Sheet, it also specified that the Siblings’ further agreements would be set forth in greater detail in a separate Liquidation Agreement and that any distributions to the Siblings would be expedited through a liquidating trust. In the event of continuing disagreement between the Siblings, the Term Sheet provided

Until dismissal of the King Receivership Litigation, the Receivership Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Term Sheet and the Liquidation Agreement. If counsel for the King Family are unable to agree upon any term or condition of the Liquidation Agreement following execution of this Term Sheet, the parties agree that such dispute may be submitted by any other party to the Receivership Court for determination and the determination of the Receivership Court shall be final and non-appealable.

(Appellant’s App. pp. 369-70).

The Siblings failed to enter into the Liquidation Agreement; instead, each Sibling presented his or her own draft liquidation agreement to the trial court. On February 24, 2006, the trial court issued its Entry Resolving Disputes Between Plaintiffs and Defendants Concerning Settlement of Litigation, which decided two issues raised by the Siblings. With respect to the accounts receivable created by the Receiver and now claimed by George, the trial court concluded that “the Receiver should eliminate all inter-company accounts prior to making the transfers contemplated by the Term Sheet and that a definitive Settlement Agreement should be executed by the parties in accordance with these findings of the [cjourt.” (Appellant’s App. p. 70). Regarding George’s request to retain stock in the Receivership Entities by having Bob and Kay transfer their shares in the Receivership Entities to him in exchange for the shares’ monetary value, the trial court concluded, in pertinent part

42. [ ] that the tax deferral mechanism which [George] seeks to have imposed under the Term Sheet, given his prior history of tax fraud and asset concealment, places an unacceptable risk upon the other King siblings, particularly should [George] liquidate the assets of the corporations and place himself in a position where he is unable to pay whatever subsequent tax liabilities might be claims against those entities. Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement should not be modified to provide for acquisition of stock in the [Receivership Entities] by [George].

(Appellant’s App. p. 75).

Again, the Siblings were unable to reach an agreement to divide the assets. Consequently, on November 25, 2008, the Receiver submitted his Plan of Distribution for the trial court’s approval. In his Plan, the Receiver acknowledged that he intended to follow the Term Sheet “to the greatest extent practicable under the circumstances” and to the extent its provisions remained relevant. (Appellant’s App. p. 343). He proposed the elimination of the accounts receivable held by Crown prior to its conveyance to George and recommended to eliminate the liquidating agent contemplated by the Term Sheet and instead allow him to manage, liquidate, and distribute the assets. The Plan further suggested to distribute certain specified receivership assets to certain Siblings, in general accord with the Term Sheet along with an equal division of the remaining assets. The Plan of Distribution also contemplated that

In the event that any of the King Children protest or dispute any of Receiver’s actions taken pursuant to this Plan, once approved, by means of litigation, or otherwise, and Receiver thereafter substantially prevails with respect to such protest or dispute, the unsuccessful disputant shall be obligated to pay all of Receiver’s legal fees and related costs incurred with respect to such protest or dispute, which amounts shall be charged against that disputant’s Distributive Share[.]

(Appellant’s App. p. 361).

On November 25, 2008, the trial court approved the Receiver’s Plan of Distribution, concluding that “Hollowing entry of a final Order of approval of the Plan, George, Bob, and Kay, as distributees, shall be entitled, and are hereby authorized, to receive distribution and all corresponding ownership rights to all of the Distribution Assets, as more appropriately detailed and described in the Plan.” (Appellant’s App. p. 395). Following the court’s entry, George appealed the trial court’s approval of the Receiver’s Plan of Distribution. However, due to substantive procedural deficiencies, we dismissed the appeal. See King v. King, 924 N.E.2d 227 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (unpublished disposition).

On October 4, 2011, the Receiver filed his Verified Final Accounting and Motions, which requested implementation of the approved and updated Plan of Distribution. On November 3, 2011, George objected claiming that the Plan of Distribution (1) failed to restore assets to Crown; (2) failed to restore tax payments to World; (3) apportioned to George 100% of the Receiver’s legal costs defending the appeal; and (4) released the Receiver from claims George “believes he may have” with respect to certain trades that occurred in Crown’s investment account which was administered by the investment firm of Young Stovall. (Appellant’s App. p. 433). Overruling George’s objections, the trial court approved the Receiver’s Final Accounting and Plan on January 5, 2012.

George now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Standard of Review

In the instant case, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, our standard of review is two-tiered: we first determine whether the evidence supports the trial court’s findings, and second, we determine whether the findings support the judgment. Briles v. Wausau Ins. Co., 858 N.E.2d 208, 212 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any reasonable inference from the evidence to support them, and the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the findings and the conclusions which rely upon those findings. Id. In establishing whether the findings or the judgment are clearly erroneous, we consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id.

While conducting our review, we cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of any witness, and must affirm the trial court’s decision if the record contains any supporting evidence or inferences. Id. However, while we defer substantially to findings of fact, we do not do so for conclusions of law. Id. We evaluate conclusions of law de novo and owe no deference to a trial court’s determination of such questions. Id.

II. Crown’s Accounts Receivable

George’s first and most important concern is the trial court’s elimination of Crown’s accounts receivable booking. Referencing paragraph 1 of the Term Sheet, which provides that the assets and/or equity interest of Crown will be conveyed to George, George asserts that this not only includes the shares of the corporation but also the accounts receivable which were eliminated by the trial court’s order of November 25, 2008 and which amounted to $687,278 by 2007.

In support of his argument, George relies heavily on the timing of the execution of the Term Sheet. Alluding to the fact that the accounts receivable were in existence from 2004 until the trial court’s elimination by its Order of November 25, 2008, George asserts that the Term Sheet was agreed upon by the Siblings and executed on February 22, 2005 — when the accounts receivable were still on the books. As such, the Siblings must have consented to the conveyance of not only Crown but also of its accounts receivable. We disagree.

The receiver is an officer of the court, and comes within the court’s sole direction as soon as he is appointed and has qualified; “parties have no authority over him.” Brock v. Rudug, 69 Ind.App. 190, 119 N.E. 491, 492 (1918). Also, as soon as a receiver is appointed and qualified, the assets become receivership assets until final distribution by court order. See Lecomte v. Wilson, 105 Ind.App. 398, 15 N.E.2d 97, 100 (1938). Therefore, the Receiver’s Plan of Distribution governs the division of assets — not the Term Sheet — as only the Plan was adopted by the trial court.

The evidence reflects that at the outset of the receivership, the Receiver proposed that all Receivership Entities would be liquidated with the proceeds divided equally between the Siblings. To that end, the Receiver began booking inter-company accounts to document the use of assets from one entity to pay the obligations owed by other Receivership Entities. The Receiver drew on Crown’s assets because the company had more liquid assets available than the other Receivership Entities. The Receiver accounted for this use of Crown assets by crediting an account receivable in favor of Crown with corresponding pay-ables charged to the Receivership or the Receivership Entities. In this scenario, the accounts receivable coupled with the accounts payable amounted to a zero net balance.

However, the Receivership’s ultimate goal was altered after the Siblings executed the Term Sheet — a private agreement between the Siblings, to which the trial court, who governed the Receivership Entities at the time, was not a party. Once the Term Sheet was executed and the Siblings had agreed to convey Crown to George and to transfer certain assets to certain Siblings, the assets included within each Receivership Entity became important. Specifically with respect to Crown, the Term Sheet provided that

The assets and/or equity interest of [Crown] shall be conveyed by the Receiver to [George], free and clear of any claims that were asserted or could have been asserted by any plaintiffs or any defendants in the King Receivership Litigation, subject only to claims for any unpaid taxes and the claims of third-party creditors of [Crown].

(Appellant’s App. p. 368).

On February 24, 2006, the trial court ordered the elimination of all inter-company accounts prior to making transfers contemplated by the Term Sheet. Because the Siblings were unable to agree on a final Settlement Agreement, the Receiver developed and submitted for the trial court’s approval two detailed Plans of Distribution. In both Plans, the Receiver followed the Term Sheet “to the greatest extent practicable under the circumstances” (Appellant’s App. p. 348). He proposed the elimination of the accounts receivable held by Crown prior to its conveyance to George and suggested certain specified receivership assets be distributed to certain Siblings. Both of the Receiver’s Plans were approved by the trial court.

Moreover, the Term Sheet itself fails to address Crown’s accounts receivable. Generally, in ascertaining the contract’s clarity, or lack thereof, we consider the whole document, not just the disputed language. City of LawrenCeburg v. Milestone Contractors, L.P., 809 N.E.2d 879, 883 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied. Construction of contract language that would render any words, phrases, or terms ineffective or meaningless should be avoided. Id. Courts should presume that all provisions included in a contract are there for a purpose and, if possible, reconcile seemingly conflicting provisions to give effect to all provisions. Id. Furthermore, in its interpretation of the contract, the court should attempt to determine the parties’ intent when entering a contract from their expression within the four corners of the written instrument. Id.

The Term Sheet divided a multitude of assets between the Siblings, ranging from real estate, safety deposit boxes, and personal property down to particular comic books. With respect to Crown, the Term Sheet merely states

The assets and/or equity interest of [Crown] shall be conveyed by the Receiver to [George], free and clear of any claims that were asserted or could have been asserted by any plaintiffs or any defendants in the King Receivership Litigation, subject only to claims for any unpaid taxes and the claims of third-party creditors of [Crown].

(Appellant’s App. p. 363) (emphasis added). Given the level of detail embodied in the Term Sheet, the absence of a clear expression by the parties to repay the accounts receivable which had been expressly created by the Receiver during the Receivership and which existed during the execution of the Term Sheet, is evidence of intent that no such offset was bargained for. Moreover, as pointed out by the trial court, and we agree, it appears that the Term Sheet’s language rejects George’s argument. Specifically, the Term Sheet establishes that Crown has to be conveyed free and clear of claims that can be asserted by any plaintiff or defendant. The account receivable is a claim asserted by George in the Receivership litigation and thus cannot be part of Crown’s conveyance. In sum we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the Receiver to eliminate Crown’s accounts receivable prior to the company’s conveyance to George.

III. Reimbursement of World’s Tax Payments

In a related argument, George claims that the trial court erred by failing to reimburse World for the tax burden it suffered as a result of the Receiver’s accounting decisions.

William Clark (Clark), the Receiver’s accountant, testified that upon the commencement of the Receivership, they discovered very poor accounting records documenting purported asset transfers — and in some instances, no records at all. “Early on,” the records showed World making transfers to the other Receivership Entities. (Tr. p. 185). Clark explained

At that point in time, we assumed that these were advances to the other entities, loans to them. But in hindsight, we became aware of the fact that, [], it could just as well be repayments of prior loans. We didn’t know [ ] whether we saw the front of the transaction or the end of the transaction, but we, we began with the assumption that this was a loan from [World] to the other entities, and each year, we did a calculation of the imputed interest, the interest that should, that would have been owned, had these been legitimate loans to these entities. This was a time consuming process. We had to impute the interest income to World, we had to impute the interest expense for [ ] K.S. King [ ], so, we began a calculation, a dual calculation on this.... We did that for a couple of years.... [W]e came to the conclusion that maybe our assumption that it was a loan could have been wrong, so we ceased doing that, because of the time constraints, and also because we were under the impression this was going to be a one third, one third, one third split, anyways, so, what difference did it make if K.S. King got a tax break and [World] got a tax [ ] bill[.]

(Tr. p. 186).

Similarly to Crown, George now asserts a right to the taxes World paid on these loans. Having paid $62,599.82 in state and federal income tax liabilities “it did not owe,” and the other Receivership Entities receiving a benefit, George requests this amount be restored to World. (Appellant’s Br. p. 17).

As with Crown, the Receiver’s Plan of Distribution governs the conveyance of assets to the Siblings. During the term of the Receivership, the assets are considered receivership assets until final distribution by court order. See Lecomte, 15 N.E.2d at 100. The Plan of Distribution, adopted by the trial court, directed the Receiver to “convey by quitclaim bill of sale all shares and/or equity interests in [World] to George.” (Appellant’s App. p. 354). As such, George is only entitled to the shares of World as they existed at the time of the conveyance, not to any specific assets or funds. Moreover, George fails to show he was harmed by the trial court’s decision not to restore the tax payments. To the contrary, the evidence reflects that the tax payment by World was offset by a corresponding tax benefit to K.S. King, Inc., which George also received under the Plan of Distribution. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining George’s request.

IV. Receiver's Appellate Fees

Next, George takes issue with the trial court’s decision to charge him with the Receiver’s legal expenses of the prior appeal which was dismissed based on George’s failure to comply with the appellate procedural rules.

When the Siblings were unable to reach an agreement based on the premises of the Term Sheet, the Receiver submitted his Plan of Distribution for the trial court’s approval on November 25, 2008. In his Plan, the Receiver acknowledged that he intended to follow the Term Sheet “to the greatest extent practicable under the circumstances” and to the extent its provisions remained relevant. (Appellant’s App. p. 343). The Plan of Distribution also contemplated that

In the event that any of the King Children protest or dispute any to Receiver’s actions taken pursuant to this Plan, once approved, by means of litigation, or otherwise, and Receiver thereafter substantially prevails with respect to such protest or dispute, the unsuccessful disputant shall be obligated to pay all of Receiver’s legal fees and related costs incurred with respect to such protest or dispute, which amounts shall be charged against that disputant’s Distributive Share[.]

(Appellant’s App. p. 361).

On November 25, 2008, the trial court approved the Receiver’s Plan of Distribution, and subsequent to the approval, George appealed. We dismissed his appeal due to his failure to comply with procedural rules. See our memorandum opinion in King v. King, 924 N.E.2d 227 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). At the request of the Receiver, the trial court allocated to George’s distributive share the Receiver’s legal expenses in the amount of $77,422 for defending the prior appeal when it approved Receiver’s Final Accounting and Plan on January 5, 2012.

George now finds this allocation to be unreasonable. First, referencing Indiana case law which premises that a receiver should be impartial and disinterested, George claims that it was inappropriate for the Receiver to expend receivership funds to oppose his appeal to the trial court’s decision to eliminate the accounts receivable. While George and Bob took the position that these accounts should be awarded to Crown, Kay opposed it. According to George, by aligning his position with Kay, the Receiver took an inappropriate position by defending “the position of one sibling over the others.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 18). We disagree.

Ind.Code § 23-1-47-3 provides, in pertinent part, that The court shall describe the powers and duties of the receiver or custodian in its appointing order, which may be amended from time to time. Among other powers: (1) the receiver:

(A) may dispose of all or any part of the assets of the corporation wherever located, at a public or private sale, if authorized by the court; and
(B) may sue and defend in the receiver’s own name as receiver of the corporation in all courts of this state[.]

This statutory provision was also included in the trial court’s order appointing the Receiver, allowing him to “initiate legal actions as he deems appropriate in discharging his duties as Receiver.” (Appellant’s App. pp. 138-39).

Thus, having a duty to defend against George’s appeal, the Receiver participated not to favor one beneficiary over another but rather to preserve receivership assets and to defend the approved Plan of Distribution. If the Receiver’s Plan had been reversed on appeal, more than nine years of work would have to be redone, including the re-creation of pre-receivership accounts to ensure that the each of the Siblings would receive what he or she is entitled to.

Second, George disputes the allocation because his appeal was not decided on the merits. While George is correct that his appeal was not decided on the merits, but rather dismissed, we remind George that pursuant to the language of the Plan of Distribution the allocation of legal fees is not dependent on the relative success of a decision on the merits but rather on being unsuccessful in a “protest” or “dispute” to any of the Receiver’s actions. By having his claim dismissed, we conclude that George was unsuccessful in his dispute and the cost of the Receiver’s legal fees was properly allocated to him.

V. Release of the Receiver

As a final issue, George contends that the trial court should not have released the Receiver from liability. George accuses the brokerage firm of Young Sto-vall of improper and unauthorized trades at the direction of the Receiver with respect to Crown’s account. Prior to the appointment of the Receiver, Crown’s investments were managed by Young Stovall and its assets were kept in debt instruments. After the appointment of the Receiver, the Crown account suffered “huge losses.” (Tr. p. 224). During the pen-dency of the receivership, George attempted to pursue claims in arbitration against Young Stovall seeking compensation for the losses Crown had suffered. However, the record reflects that the Receiver notified the arbitrator that George lacked standing to pursue the arbitration because he was not the owner of Crown and the arbitration was subsequently dismissed. In its final judgment, the trial court granted George a limited Power of Attorney to pursue the arbitration, but at the same time, the trial court also provided a complete release to the Receiver thereby making it impossible for George to obtain any relief against the Receiver for actions related to trading on the Young Stovall account. Referencing a receiver’s fiduciary duty to protect and preserve the assets of the receivership, George contends that the trial court abused its discretion in releasing the Receiver from liability with respect to perceived mishandling of the Crown investments.

In support of his argument that the Crown brokerage account suffered “huge losses” during the receivership, George relies on his own testimony. Most notably, responding to his counsel’s question “what information do you have that [the Receiver] did something inappropriate as Receiver[?]” George replied:

We don’t yet. We haven’t been able to get the Young Stovall records. [The Receiver] has blocked that. It’s extremely peculiar to me, though, why he would come in and block that, instead of letting us get the information, and proceeding down there on that suit, if it was Young Stovall’s fault. Now I’m beginning to wonder who’s fault it is. Somebody had to give those orders. Stocks aren’t just traded and purchased unless there’s an order from somebody.

(Tr. p. 228). In defending his position with respect to the Crown assets and Young Stovall’s actions, the Receiver testified:

Crown, through Lee Bryant [the investment broker], has had a relationship with the brokerage firm of Young Sto-vall. I believe that Mr. Bryant has served us well. I rarely hear from him, and when I do, I follow his advice [ ] and to the extent that losses were taken, that’s unfortunate. But overall, Crown investments are up considerably. There’s not a cumulative net loss. Crown, I think has been invested pretty prudently. I don’t hold myself out to be an investment advisor. [George] knows that. So I do follow, [ ], I either leaved [sic] the money the way it was committed when we found the case, or in the event of mature investments, followed the direction of the broker, wherever the money is held.

(Tr. p. 233).

Lacking any concrete evidence to accuse the Receiver of mishandling the account, George’s claims are entirely speculative and based on conjecture. See Colen v. Pride Vending Service, 654 N.E.2d 1159, 1163 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (Testimony based on conjecture or speculation is insufficient to support a claim.) Therefore, the trial court properly rejected George’s request to deny the Receiver’s release from liability.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it approved the elimination of certain inter-company accounts receivable belonging to Crown prior to conveying Crown to George; (2) the trial court properly decided that the Receiver was not required to reimburse World for tax payments relating to inter-company accounts prior to conveying World to George; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allocating the Receiver’s legal costs to George after George’s unsuccessful prior appeal; and (4) the trial court properly released the Receiver from liability for all his actions during the pendency of the receivership.

Affirmed.

BAILEY, J., concurs.

CRONE, J., concurs in result.

      . We held oral argument in the instant case on October 30, 2012 at the Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom in Indianapolis, Indiana. We thank and commend the parties for their eloquence and excellent advocacy.

      . Kay and Christopher obtained a tort judgment against George for the shooting, which was paid in 2008 from George’s anticipated share of the receivership assets.

      . Two King entities, C.K. Co. and K.S. King, Co., an Indiana corporation and a proprietorship respectively, are controlled by Kay. Although the Receiver considered their assets in his Plan of Distribution, they are not Receivership Entities and are aligned as plaintiffs in the receivership.

      . At the onset of his receivership, it became clear to the Receiver that the Receivership Entities were merely holding companies for investments, with their predominant holding marketable securities. These assets were seemingly arbitrarily apportioned to the various Receivership Entities and George Sr. moved the assets around without any documented underlying financial transaction justifying the transfer of assets.


author: KIRSCH, Judge.

text:
    J.R., Appellant-Respondent, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner.
    No. 49A05-1204-JV-175.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana.
    Jan. 15, 2013.

      Joel M. Schumm, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
    Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
   OPINION

KIRSCH, Judge.

J.R. appeals from his adjudication as a delinquent child for burglary, which would be a Class B felony if committed by an adult, theft, which would be a Class D felony if committed by an adult, auto theft, which would be a Class D felony if committed by an adult, and resisting law enforcement, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. He raises the following restated issue: whether his adjudications for both theft and auto theft are barred due to the single larceny rule.

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 5, 2011, Donald Overby’s Indianapolis residence was burglarized. A handgun, a television, and an iPod were taken from the home. His 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche was also taken from the attached garage. The Avalanche had Onstar tracking capability, which enabled the police to locate the vehicle in the 3400 block of Cecil Avenue in Indianapolis, Indiana.

A police officer went to the location, observed the vehicle, and parked nearby to wait. A short time later, he saw two individuals enter the vehicle, drive away, and then pull into another parking lot. The officer activated his emergency lights and pulled in behind the Avalanche. The driver, who was later identified as J.R., stepped out of the vehicle, and the officer ordered him to return to the vehicle. J.R. then fled on foot, despite the officer’s command to stop. J.R. was eventually caught on another street and returned to the area where the Avalanche was located. Overby was brought to the scene where the vehicle was located. As J.R. was being searched incident to arrest, police pulled an iPod from his pocket. J.R. nodded toward Ov-erby and stated, “that belongs to him.” Tr. at 26. Overby confirmed that he owned the iPod.

The State filed a petition alleging J.R. to be delinquent because he had committed acts that would be Class B felony burglary, Class D felony theft, Class D felony auto theft, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult. A fact-finding hearing was held, at the conclusion of which, the juvenile court found the State had met its burden on each of the charges. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court placed J.R. on probation with a suspended commitment to the Department of Correction. J.R. now appeals.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

J.R. argues that the juvenile court’s true findings for both theft and auto theft cannot stand because, under the “single larceny rule,” there was only one offense. Under the single larceny rule, when several articles of property are taken at the same time, from the same place, belonging to the same person or to several persons there is but a single “larceny,” i.e. a single offense. Taylor v. State, 879 N.E.2d 1198, 1204 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (citing Raines v. State, 514 N.E.2d 298, 300 (Ind.1987)). “ ‘The rationale behind this rule is that the taking of several articles at the same time from the same place is pursuant to a single intent and design.’ ” Id. (quoting Raines, 514 N.E.2d at 300). Therefore, if only one offense had been committed, there may be only one judgment and one sentence. Benberry v. State, 742 N.E.2d 532, 536 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001). Protections for individuals facing multiple convictions for a single act apply equally to juvenile adjudications. H.M. v. State, 892 N.E.2d 679, 682 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008), trans. denied.

In this case, the State filed a petition alleging J.R. to be delinquent because he had committed an act that would be Class D felony theft if committed by an adult. The State specifically alleged that J.R. broke into Overby’s home and stole the victim’s television iPod, and handgun. Appellant’s App. at 29. The State also filed a petition alleging J.R. to be delinquent because he committed an act that would be Class D felony auto theft if committed by an adult. That count specifically alleged that J.R. stole Overby’s 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche. These offenses, although occurring at the same time and at the same residence, are distinct because they each involved the violation of a different statute.

J.R. relies on Stout v. State, 479 N.E.2d 563 (Ind.1985) for his contention that his true findings for theft and auto theft cannot stand. In that case, the defendant was charged with two counts of theft; in one count, he was charged with the theft of various items, including a television, a chain saw, and five guns, and in a second count, he was charged with the theft of an automobile from the attached garage. Id. at 568. Both counts alleged violation of Indiana Code section 35-43-4-2(a). Id. Our Supreme Court found that the defendant’s convictions for both counts of theft violated the single larceny rule because the defendant exerted unauthorized control over several items of personal property, including an automobile, all of which were taken at the same time from the same place, the victim’s home, and “[t]his constituted but one offenses in violation of a single statute.” Id. The Court stated that, in deciding an issue regarding the single larceny rule, the “the proper focus is on whether ‘the offenses to be prosecuted and punished are the same, and not whether the offenses spring from the same act or operative circumstances.... The ultimate focus is on the identity of the offenses, not on the identity of their source.’ ” Id. (quoting Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 532, 539, 382 N.E.2d 893, 897 (1978), abrogated on other grounds by Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999)). The Court determined that the only distinguishing factor between the two counts of theft was the property stolen and reiterated that the State cannot split up a single theft offense and make distinct parts of that single offense the basis for separate or multiple prosecutions. Id.

We find Stout to be distinguishable from the present case. There, the only difference between the two theft counts was the identity of the stolen property; everything else was the same, including the violated statute. Both counts alleged a violation of Indiana Code section 35-43-4-2. Here, such similarity does not exist. In the present case, Count II alleged a theft and a violation of Indiana Code section 35-43-4-2. Appellant’s App. at 29. Count III alleged an auto theft and a violation of Indiana Code section 35-43-4-2.5. Id. At the time that Stout was decided, there was no distinct statute for the crime of auto theft. Indiana Code section 35-43-4-2.5 was enacted after the crimes in Stout occurred. The enactment of this separate statute indicated the General Assembly’s intention that auto theft be considered a completely separate offense from theft and that violations of the two statutes be considered distinct. Therefore, in Stout, the defendant was convicted of two counts of theft, which were identical offenses except for the identity of the property stolen. But here, true findings were made as to theft and auto theft, which are different offenses and violations of different statutes. We conclude that the crimes of theft and auto theft are distinct offenses, and J.R.’s true findings for both offenses did not violate the single larceny rule.

Affirmed.

NAJAM, J., and MAY, J., concur.

      . See Ind.Code § 35-43-2-1.

      . See Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2.

      . See Ind.Code § 35-43-4-2.5.

        .See Ind.Code § 35-44-3-3 (effective July 1, 2012, Title 35 Article 44 was repealed and replaced with Title 35 Article 44.1).