that the mere creation of a security interest against a business partner’s interest in the business impacts a property interest owned by the business and the other owners that requires due process protections. See Bankhead v. Walker, 846 N.E.2d 1048, 1053 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (noting that procedural due process protections apply only to deprivations of life, liberty, or property). That is all that the original dissolution decree here did — it granted Christina a security interest against Jeffs ownership interests in the Crider Entities. We acknowledge and agree that the Crider Entities were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to any enforcement or foreclosure of Christina’s security interests. See Brant v. Krilich, 835 N.E.2d 582, 588 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). The Crider Entities did successfully
recognizing need to balance interests of debt or and creditor in determining nature of protection to be afforded creditor holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that new yorks notice to judgment debtors satisfied due process by specifying that a procedure existed to adjudicate exemption claims and advising debtors to contact an attorney even though the notice did not inform judgment debtors of the specific steps to be taken to test exemption claims holding llcs were entitled to notice of proceedings supplemental instituted by a judgment creditor to attempt to obtain judgment debtors interests in the companies to pay judgment debt holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment