Diane S. Brown Bell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Bryant Company, Inc.
2 N.E.3d 716
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Bell owned rental property in Indianapolis and hired Bryant as exclusive leasing/management agent under a written Management Agreement.
- Bryant procured a tenant, Wendy L. Winkle, who signed a lease with late fees and other charges payable to Bryant.
- Bell learned Bryant had kept late fees paid by Winkle and sued in a class action for breach of contract and conversion.
- Bryant answered and counterclaimed for breach of contract and promissory estoppel; Bryant moved to dismiss under TR 12(B)(6) after answering.
- The trial court treated Bryant’s motion as a TR 12(C) judgment on the pleadings; the matter was appealed.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, accepting well-pleaded facts and documents attached to pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred granting dismissal | Bell argues breach of contract; late fees were not rightfully retained by Bryant. | Bryant argues the Agreement authorized retention as additional compensation for noncustomary services. | Judgment on pleadings reversed; Bell stated a potential breach claim. |
| Whether Bell’s complaint may be certified as a class action | Bell asserts common questions warrant class treatment; disputes require contract interpretation common to class. | Bryant argues contract ambiguity and individualized questions defeat class certification. | Remanded for class-certification analysis under TR 23; judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeHart v. Anderson, 383 N.E.2d 431 (Ind. App. 1978) (TR 12(C) standard for judgments on the pleadings after answer)
- Murray v. City of Lawrenceburg, 925 N.E.2d 728 (Ind. 2010) (pleadings-based review; relief must be possible on face of complaint)
- Forte v. Connerwood Healthcare, Inc., 745 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. 2001) (face-of-pleadings standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Niezer v. Todd Realty, Inc., 913 N.E.2d 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (contract interpretation; ambiguous terms resolved with extrinsic evidence)
- Consol. Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Water Servs., LLC, 994 N.E.2d 1192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (consideration of attached documents and pleading materials)
- 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Bowens, 857 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (class certification is subject to TR 23 requirements and trial court discretion)