ANTON REALTY, LLC v. GUARDIAN BROKERS LTD., INC., 1:13-cv-01915

Background

Anton Realty (Anton Realty, LLC and Andy Mohr Truck Center, Inc.) sued Guardian Brokers and National Bank of Commerce concerning a disputed real estate closing and related loan instruments.
On July 1, 2015 the court granted summary judgment to Guardian Brokers as to liability on all claims by both parties.
Anton Realty moved for reconsideration, asserting (1) Guardian Brokers wrongfully interfered with the September 11, 2013 closing by misrepresenting rights to the property, and (2) the Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure did not convey an interest to Guardian Brokers because the grantor lacked intent, so Guardian Brokers took subject to Anton Realty’s alleged equitable interest.
The court treated the motion as an interlocutory motion for reconsideration under its inherent power and Rule 54(b) standards, noting that such motions are limited to correcting manifest errors or presenting newly discovered evidence.
The court found Anton Realty raised new legal theories and facts not presented at summary judgment (and repackaged previously rejected arguments), and therefore waived them; it also rejected the alternative merits arguments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Guardian Brokers wrongfully interfered with the Sept. 11 closing by misrepresenting rights to the property	Guardian: Guardian caused the closing to fail by misrepresenting it had rights to the property, so it cannot rely on the failure of a condition precedent	Guardian: At summary judgment Anton Realty had argued Guardian had no right to the notes on Sept. 11, so Guardian had no obligation to accept the payoff and thus did not control the condition precedent	Court: Argument raised for first time on reconsideration—waived. Even if considered, meritless because Guardian had no duty to accept payoff where it was not recognized as holder on Sept. 11.
Whether Mr. Smith’s subjective intent when signing the Deed in Lieu prevented conveyance of any interest to Guardian Brokers	Anton: Mr. Smith did not intend to convey an interest, so a fact issue exists whether Guardian received any interest	Guardian: Delivery and exchange for release show intent to convey whatever interest the grantor had; grantor’s mistaken belief about the extent of the interest is irrelevant	Court: Argument first raised on reconsideration—waived. On merits, intent as expressed by signing/delivery controls; conveyance effective to transfer whatever interest existed.
Whether Guardian Brokers’ interest (from a quitclaim-like Deed in Lieu) is subject to Anton Realty’s asserted equitable title that could ripen into legal title	Anton: The deed is quitclaim-like, so Guardian takes subject to Anton’s equitable interest which could become legal title	Guardian: Indiana law does not recognize a doctrine by which equitable title ripens into legal title as Anton suggests; prior summary judgment reasoning rejected this theory	Court: Rehashing previously rejected argument—denied. Court reiterated Indiana law does not support Anton’s equitable-title-to-legal-title theory.
Whether the motion for reconsideration identified a manifest error of law or fact warranting relief	Anton: Motion reasserts and reframes arguments and asserts the Court overlooked material issues	Guardian: Motion improperly introduces new theories/facts and fails to show manifest error; standards for reconsideration limit relief	Court: Anton failed to show manifest error or newly discovered evidence; motion denied for being untimely as to new theories and for lack of merit.

Key Cases Cited

Publishers Resource, Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557 (7th Cir. 1985) (motions for reconsideration limited to correcting manifest error or presenting new evidence)
Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir. 1996) (reconsideration is not a forum to rehash or present arguments that could have been made earlier)
AquaSource, 833 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App.) (party may not rely on failure of a condition precedent when its own action caused the failure)
Scott v. Scott, 127 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App.) (test for whether grantor’s acts/words evince intent to surrender possession/control in favor of grantee)
Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (courts rely on parties to frame issues; parties are responsible for presenting arguments)