Chapel Ridge Investments, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee for the Registered Holders of ML-CFC Commerical Mortgage Trust 2006-4 (mem. dec.)
02A05-1702-MF-261
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- U.S. Bank (as Noteholder) sued Chapel Ridge for default on a commercial mortgage loan and attached loan documents and an affidavit from Jeff Coupe, an asset manager at C-III, as exhibits.
- Noteholder moved for summary judgment; it designated the loan documents, Coupe’s first and second affidavits, and an attorney-fee affidavit.
- Chapel Ridge sought a 60-day extension to respond for discovery reasons; the court granted a shorter extension to January 3, 2017.
- Chapel Ridge filed a motion to strike portions of the Coupe affidavits and the attorney-fee affidavit and submitted a response to summary judgment. The court denied the motion to strike and granted summary judgment for Noteholder.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed (1) the trial court’s partial enlargement of the Trial Rule 56 time limit and (2) the denial of Chapel Ridge’s motion to strike affidavit material relied on for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chapel Ridge) | Defendant's Argument (Noteholder) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting less than the 60-day extension requested under T.R. 56(I). | The court’s shorter extension prejudiced Chapel Ridge because it needed more time for discovery. | The shorter extension preserved the hearing; Chapel Ridge made no discovery requests before or after the extension. | Affirmed — no prejudice shown; no reversible error. |
| Whether portions of Coupe’s affidavits lacked personal knowledge and should be stricken under T.R. 56(E). | Coupe’s affidavits show only general knowledge of C-III records, not specific personal knowledge of the Chapel Ridge loan. | Coupe’s position and possession of loan documents allow inference of personal knowledge. | Denial of strike upheld — Coupe’s personal knowledge is reasonably inferable; affidavits admissible except for specified parts. |
| Whether paragraph three of the Second Coupe Affidavit (amounts owed) violated T.R. 56(E) by referring to unproduced business records. | Paragraph three relies on C-III books/records and did not attach sworn/certified copies as required. | The records were business records underlying the affidavit (Noteholder did not contend they were self-authenticated). | Reversed as to that paragraph — court should have struck it; those averments are disregarded for damages. |
| Whether the Attorney Fee Affidavit failed to satisfy local rule requirements and should be stricken. | The affidavit lacked sufficient detail to establish reasonableness of the requested fees. | The affidavit described hours, rates, services, and expenses—sufficient to satisfy the local rule. | Denial of strike affirmed — affidavit contained adequate information for the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. Royer, 848 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (standard of review for altering T.R. 56 time limits).
- Mitchell v. 10th & The Bypass, LLC, 3 N.E.3d 967 (Ind. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion definition).
- Guzik v. Town of St. John, 875 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (T.R. 56(E) affidavit form and mandatory requirements).
- Young v. Hood’s Gardens, Inc., 24 N.E.3d 421 (Ind. 2015) (summary judgment standard and construing evidence for non-movant).
- Seth v. Midland Funding, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (business-records-based affidavits must attach the underlying records or rely on self-authentication).
- DeLage Landen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 965 N.E.2d 693 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (personal-knowledge inference for affidavits).