The Indiana Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal by Reindeer Logistics, LLC, concerning the possession of eleven passenger vans owned by Model 1 Commercial Vehicles, Inc. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the preliminary order for immediate possession issued by the trial court. This decision affects Reindeer, which claimed it was holding the vans as security for a debt owed by another company.
The case, titled Reindeer Logistics, LLC v. Model 1 Commercial Vehicles, Inc., was filed under docket number 25A-CE-02496. The ruling was issued on October 13, 2026, by Judge Kenworthy, with Judges Bradford and Pyle concurring. The dispute centers around the possession of the vans, which Reindeer claimed it was entitled to hold due to unpaid charges from Zeeba Automotive Group, Inc., the company that leased the vans from Model 1.
Model 1, which sells and leases commercial vehicles, entered into a master lease agreement with Zeeba for sixty-two Ford passenger vans. However, Zeeba defaulted on its payments, leading Model 1 to terminate the lease and seek the return of the vans. Some of the vans were in the possession of Reindeer, which refused to return them, claiming it had a valid possessory lien for unpaid storage and transport fees.
In August 2025, Model 1 filed a complaint for replevin, breach of lease, and damages against Zeeba and named Reindeer as a defendant. The trial court granted Model 1 a preliminary order for immediate possession of the vans, contingent on Model 1 posting a bond of $1.1 million. Reindeer appealed this order, but Model 1 moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that it was not an appealable order.
The court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to review the trial court's preliminary possession order. The ruling stated, "We hold we do not have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s preliminary possession order under the facts and circumstances of this case." The court noted that preliminary orders for immediate possession in replevin actions are not considered final judgments and therefore do not qualify for an interlocutory appeal.
The court explained that an interlocutory appeal can only proceed under specific rules, and in this case, Reindeer did not meet the criteria for an appeal of right. The court found that the preliminary order did not produce financial and legal consequences akin to those typically found in final judgments. The bond posted by Model 1 served to protect Reindeer’s interests, as it exceeded the amount of unpaid storage fees Reindeer claimed it was owed.
This ruling clarifies the limits of appellate jurisdiction in Indiana regarding preliminary orders. It highlights that not all orders that may have financial implications are appealable as of right. The decision underscores the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding replevin actions and the conditions under which appeals can be made.
The dismissal of Reindeer's appeal means that Model 1 can proceed with regaining possession of the vans, assuming all other conditions are met. This case may set a precedent for future disputes involving possession and liens in similar contexts, particularly regarding the rights of parties in replevin actions.
Moving forward, it remains to be seen if Reindeer will pursue any further legal action or if Model 1 will successfully reclaim the vans. The court's decision emphasizes the need for parties involved in similar disputes to be aware of the legal implications of their claims and the procedural requirements for appealing court orders.