Formal Inventory of Violations and Schedule of Potential Monetary Remedies
I. Introduction and Purpose
This document provides a formal, evidence-based inventory of the jurisdictional, procedural, and civil rights violations identified in the case file of Cody Rice-Velasquez. Its purpose is to systematically outline these violations and to construct a defensible estimate of potential monetary and non-monetary remedies based on the provided source materials. The analysis demonstrates a cascade of failures, beginning with fundamental defects in legal process and extending to post-judgment torts and civil rights infringements. The most critical violations concern the court’s fundamental authority to act, which provides the foundation for the subsequent analysis.
II. Foundational Jurisdictional & Due Process Violations
A court’s authority to render a valid judgment is entirely dependent on satisfying the fundamental requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard. The failure to meet these constitutional prerequisites can render a judgment void from its inception. The following subsections examine critical failures in these areas that occurred in this matter, which collectively support the argument that the underlying foreclosure judgment is void ab initio (from the beginning).
A. Failure of Service and Lack of Jurisdiction
A stark conflict exists between the formal requirements for service of process and the defendant’s sworn testimony. The “Sheriff’s Return on Service of Summons” document from the court record outlines several methods of service, including personal delivery. However, the defendant, Cody Rice-Velasquez, has provided a sworn statement directly contradicting that any such notice was received. In an affidavit submitted under penalties of perjury, the defendant states:
“I affirm that I never received lawful notice of this foreclosure action.”
This sworn declaration is legally significant. As established in foundational due process jurisprudence, a person cannot be deprived of property rights in a case where they were not served or effectively made a party (Procedural Due Process Civil). Therefore, if service was not perfected, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, rendering the default judgment and all subsequent actions void ab initio.
B. Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment: Procedural Due Process
The U.S. Constitution demands a rigorous standard for notice before a person can be deprived of a property interest. The Supreme Court, in cases such as Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, has established that due process requires “notice reasonably calculated to apprise” an individual of a pending action against them. The potential loss of a home through foreclosure unquestionably constitutes a “grievous loss” of a protected property interest.
Furthermore, the legal analysis in Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. establishes that a state-created property interest—which includes a cause of action or the right to defend one’s property in court—cannot be extinguished by agency inaction or procedural error. In this case, the potential failure of the court or the sheriff’s office to ensure proper notice was delivered constitutes such a procedural error, effectively stripping the defendant of the right to defend the case. This failure represents a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process.
C. Violation of the Indiana Constitution: Right to a Remedy
The Indiana Constitution provides an independent and robust protection for access to the courts. Article I, Section 12, known as the “Right to Remedy Clause,” ensures that every person shall have a remedy by due course of law for an injury. As interpreted in cases like McINTOSH v. MELROE COMPANY, this provision is not merely aspirational; it guarantees meaningful access to the courts to seek redress.
A default judgment entered without proper notice functionally denies this constitutional right. It completely bars the courthouse doors, preventing the defendant from asserting any of the numerous affirmative defenses available to them, such as those cataloged in “31 Affirmative Defenses and How to Assert Them,” which are permanently waived if not raised in a timely answer. By precluding any opportunity to be heard, the defective judgment nullified a core protection of the state constitution. These jurisdictional and constitutional failures form the basis for arguing the judgment is void and create independent grounds for significant legal remedies.
III. Violations of Federal Civil Rights Protections
Beyond the procedural defects of the foreclosure itself, the actions and inactions of the involved parties give rise to powerful claims under federal civil rights statutes. These statutes are of strategic importance because they provide for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and the recovery of attorney’s fees, creating significant financial exposure for the opposing parties.
A. Discrimination Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The defendant is a qualified individual with a disability, with “documented disabilities (ADHD, anxiety, executive dysfunction)” noted in the case log. The record shows that the defendant made formal efforts to secure legally mandated accommodations. An “ADA TITLE II NOTICE & REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION” was submitted to the Marion Superior Court and the Marion County Sheriff’s Office.
Despite these formal requests, the defendant has alleged a denial of rights, including “Interference with my ability to access justice,” as stated in a formal HUD complaint. The need to preserve evidence of these accommodation denials during the chaotic property retrieval process further underscores the alleged non-compliance. Under Title II of the ADA, public entities like a state court system have an affirmative obligation to provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication, a principle reinforced in the Department of Justice’s Statement of Interest in Steven Prakel v. State of Indiana. The failure to engage with and provide these requested accommodations constitutes a direct violation of the ADA.
B. Discrimination Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA)
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in housing-related activities, which explicitly includes the failure to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities. As noted in “Disability Terms – Home for All of Us,” property owners and their agents have a legal responsibility to grant such accommodations. The defendant’s forced displacement and subsequent difficulties in accessing personal property can be framed as a direct result of the failure to accommodate the defendant’s known disabilities.
The claims articulated in the defendant’s HUD complaint, including “Forced displacement and housing instability” and “Denial of access to my property,” fall squarely within the FHA’s protections. Precedents from Department of Justice enforcement actions illustrate the seriousness of such violations. Cases such as U.S. v. Brooklyn Park and U.S. v. Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura resulted in substantial monetary damages for failures to accommodate, establishing a clear legal and financial risk for similar conduct. The defendant’s damages were further compounded by tortious acts following the physical removal from the property.
IV. Post-Judgment Torts and Continuing Harms
Even if the foreclosure judgment were procedurally valid, the subsequent conduct of the opposing party and its agents created new, independent causes of action. These actions are not procedural errors but distinct torts that inflicted tangible and emotional harm upon the defendant, giving rise to separate claims for damages.
A. Negligence and Property Destruction
Following the eviction, the opposing party’s agents took possession of the property but failed to secure it properly. The case log details their conduct as “Leaving the premises unsecured in freezing weather.” This negligence led to foreseeable and severe harms, including “Burst pipes, water damage, and mold,” which destroyed the defendant’s remaining personal property. This conduct reflects a broader pattern identified in fair housing litigation, such as the lawsuits against Bank of America, where foreclosed properties in certain communities are poorly maintained. This pattern of neglect leads to broader harms such as diminished home values and community blight, as documented in the NATIONAL FAI complaint.
B. Conversion and Trespass to Chattels
The actions of the agents on site went beyond the scope of securing the premises. The specific act of “Unplugging personal appliances and electronics,” as documented in the case log, constitutes an unlawful interference with the defendant’s personal property, legally defined as chattels. This act was not necessary to secure the home and resulted in the spoilage of food and potential damage to the electronics, forming the basis for claims of conversion and trespass to chattels.
C. Emotional Distress
The defendant has suffered significant emotional harm as a direct result of the cumulative actions of the opposing parties. This distress is not abstract but is rooted in specific, documented events:
- The profound distress from forced displacement and the extreme financial pressure that followed.
- Heightened stress and anxiety resulting from the wanton destruction of personal property left in the home.
- Specific trauma from the loss of a mini-fridge that held deep personal meaning as a gift from a friend who was murdered.
- Physical pain, depletion, and severe distress from being unsheltered and sleeping in a vehicle in freezing temperatures.
Legal precedent, such as the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, supports the award of monetary damages for emotional distress, finding it to be a foreseeable result of discriminatory conduct. These post-judgment harms represent discrete, quantifiable damages that must be included in any remedy calculation.
V. Schedule of Estimated Monetary Remedies
This section synthesizes the preceding analysis into a quantitative estimate of potential monetary remedies. This schedule is based on property valuations from the case file and damage awards from comparable civil rights enforcement actions documented in the source materials. It is intended to provide a structured basis for settlement negotiations or, if necessary, a claim for damages at trial.
A. Compensatory Damages (Economic)
Economic damages are based on tangible, verifiable losses directly resulting from the opposing parties’ actions.
Damage Category Basis for Valuation Estimated Value Source Document(s) Loss of Real Property Equity Estimated equity based on the adjusted sale price of Comparable Sale #3, as detailed in the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report. $196,528 21June-24-4817Shadow_Appraisal.pdf Value of Destroyed Personal Property Replacement cost for items damaged by burst pipes, mold, and improper handling. To be itemized based on Defendant’s records. Case_Log.md Costs of Displacement Documented expenses related to being unsheltered (e.g., vehicle fuel, temporary storage, etc.). To be itemized based on Defendant’s records. Case_Log.md, Text
B. Compensatory Damages (Non-Economic)
Non-economic damages compensate for the emotional and psychological harm cataloged in Section IV.C. Based on damages awarded in cases like U.S. v. Raleigh Annex Apartments (60,000 for disability discrimination) and U.S. v. Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura (75,000 for failure to accommodate), a reasonable estimate for emotional distress and dignitary harm falls within the 75,000 range.
C. Statutory & Punitive Damages
Punitive damages may be warranted where conduct demonstrates a reckless or callous disregard for a person’s federally protected rights. The combination of ignoring formal ADA accommodation requests and the subsequent gross negligence in securing the property could be argued to meet this standard. Federal enforcement actions provide a useful proxy for estimating such damages, with civil penalties in cases like U.S. v. Williams (30,000) and U.S. v. City of Jackson (35,000) suggesting a potential range for a punitive award.
D. Summary of Potential Monetary Remedy
Synthesizing the above figures provides a comprehensive view of the potential claim value, which can be contrasted with the defendant’s stated settlement goals. The defendant has identified a target for a negotiated “Cash payment 80k–100k” as a primary objective.
A full valuation of the legal claims suggests a significantly higher potential recovery:
- Total Potential Claim Value: The sum of lost equity (196,528), non-economic damages (50k-75k), and potential punitive damages (~30k) places the total exposure well over $275,000, not including the value of destroyed personal property or attorney’s fees.
- Negotiation Goal: The defendant’s target of 80k-100k represents a pragmatic path to resolution, focusing on immediate financial recovery and critical non-monetary relief.
Monetary awards alone are insufficient to make the defendant whole, which introduces the critical need for non-monetary relief to repair the long-term damage caused.
VI. Critical Non-Monetary Remedies
A comprehensive remedy must also address the long-term consequences of the foreclosure, particularly the catastrophic impact on the defendant’s credit and financial stability. These non-monetary terms are essential components of any final settlement and are designed to restore the defendant to the position they were in before the unlawful actions occurred.
The following terms are deemed essential:
- Vacating of Judgment: The underlying foreclosure judgment must be declared void and vacated by the court.
- Complete Deletion of the Financial Center First Credit Union (FCFCU) Tradeline: The settlement must mandate the full and permanent deletion of the Financial Center First Credit Union (FCFCU) tradeline from all three major credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion).
- Waiver of Deficiency: The agreement must include a formal, irrevocable waiver stating that no deficiency balance is or will ever be owed by the defendant.
- Neutralized Reporting: A binding agreement must ensure that no foreclosure is ever reported on the defendant’s credit history or in any other public or private database.
- Global Release and Confidentiality: The settlement will include standard terms for a mutual global release of all claims and a confidentiality agreement.