Appellants-defendants John, Arlene, Jordan, and Beth Balvich (collectively, the Balviches) appeal the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of the appellees-plaintiffs Stephen and Maureen Spicer (the Spicers) regarding the Spicers’ claim against them for contribution on various deficiency judgments that had been entered against the Spicers. Specifically, the Balviches argue that the Spicers’ action against them was barred by the statute of limitations, that joint and several liability should not have attached, and that the Spicers erroneously obtained a judgment against them with regard to tax liabilities of the various business entities because the Indiana Tax Court had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.
Conclusion (slip op. at 22-23): We conclude that the Spicers’ action against the Balviches for contribution was not barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, the evidence established that the Spicers were entitled to contribution from the Balviches on the AT&T and Bank One judgments, and the trial court properly concluded that the Spicers were entitled to contribution from Arlene on the Indiana tax trust liabilities. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 12, 19): Although the Balviches assert that the Spicers’ claims are barred under the 6-year statute of limitations because the action for contribution is based on “accounts and contracts not in writing,” our Supreme Court in Pflanz v. Foster (2008) recently determined that a 10-year statute of limitation applies to contribution claims . . . Contrary to the Balviches’ claims, IC 34-22-1-6 (Remedies against Co-Defendants and Co-Sureties) does not contain a requirement that the judgment must be paid “in full” or “in its entirety.”