DeLage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. Community Mental Health Center, Inc.
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 137
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- DLL filed breach of contract action against CMHC; DLL is the assignee of Pitney Bowes under a lease agreement.
- CMHC leased seven IM3511 copiers and related accessories for 60 months at $1,933 per month.
- Pitney Bowes assigned the lease to DLL; CMHC stopped paying in February 2009, creating default.
- DLL moved for summary judgment March 15, 2011; CMHC sought an enlargement of time under Trial Rule 6(B)(2) and filed a belated response.
- Trial court denied enlargement; DLL moved to strike the belated response; the court ultimately allowed CMHC’s belated response and denied DLL’s summary judgment; the appellate court reversed and remanded for proper disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting Rule 60(B) relief. | DLL argues no relief was proper. | CMHC argues excusable neglect justified relief. | Abused discretion; relief improper. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied DLL summary judgment. | DLL entitled to judgment on undisputed facts. | Disputed facts preclude summary judgment. | Correct result: with proper evidence DLL is entitled to summary judgment. |
| Whether there was proof of assignment from Pitney Bowes to DLL. | Evidence supports assignment to DLL. | Assignment not proven beyond doubt. | Assignment proven for purposes of summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- HomEq Servicing Corp. v. Baker, 883 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. 2008) (late-filed responses not permitted unless excusable neglect shown)
- Desai v. Croy, 805 N.E.2d 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (trial court may alter time limits under 56(I) when non-movant responds or seeks extension timely)
- Borsuk v. Town of St. John, 820 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 2005) (no consideration of late summary judgment filings if no timely response/extension)
- Seufert v. RWB Med. Income Props. I Ltd. P'ship, 649 N.E.2d 1070 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (trial court discretion under 56(F) or 56(I) depends on timely response to motion for summary judgment)
- Thayer v. Gohil, 740 N.E.2d 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (timely extensions do not ensure relief if untimely late filing)