55 N.E.3d 348
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2009 Zavodnik bought a used printer from Costello for under $75; Zavodnik sued in small-claims court claiming the printer was defective and sought the small-claims maximum. Costello won in small claims after the court found Zavodnik had disposed of the printer to suppress evidence.
- Zavodnik appealed to superior court and served three sets of requests for admission under Indiana Trial Rule 36, including requests that Costello admit liability for $30,044.07, $300,000, and $600,000.
- Costello, proceeding pro se for much of the litigation, did not respond to the requests; the matters were deemed admitted under Rule 36 and the trial court entered an order to that effect after a hearing Costello did not attend.
- After counsel appeared, Costello moved under Trial Rule 36(B) to withdraw the admissions; the trial court permitted withdrawal of the large-sum admissions but refused to withdraw the $30,044.07 admission and later entered summary judgment for that amount.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by partially denying withdrawal because (1) allowing withdrawal would subserve resolution on the merits, (2) Zavodnik showed no prejudice in preparing his case, and (3) Zavodnik had abused Rule 36 by using inflated, unsupported monetary admissions to obtain a windfall. The case was remanded with instructions to hold a Rule 41(E) hearing on Zavodnik’s abusive litigation practices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should permit withdrawal of Rule 36 admissions under TR 36(B) | Zavodnik argued admissions should stand; withdrawal is discretionary and may be denied | Costello argued withdrawal should be allowed because presentation of the merits would be subserved and plaintiff would not be prejudiced | Court: Partial withdrawal denial was an abuse of discretion; all admissions should have been withdrawn |
| Whether summary judgment based solely on deemed admissions was proper | Zavodnik argued admitted facts warranted summary judgment for $30,044.07 | Costello argued the admissions resulted from procedural abuse and should be withdrawn so merits can be heard | Court: Summary judgment based on the surviving admission reversed because the admission should have been withdrawn |
| What constitutes prejudice under TR 36(B) | Zavodnik contended he was entitled to rely on admissions and would be prejudiced by withdrawal | Costello contended Zavodnik suffered no preparation detriment and can still marshal evidence | Court: Prejudice means detriment to preparation; Zavodnik showed no such detriment here |
| Whether Rule 36 may be used to obtain excessive, unsupported damages | Zavodnik relied on literal operation of Rule 36 to deem admissions admitted | Costello argued Zavodnik abused Rule 36 by asking for wildly disproportionate damages to trap nonresponding pro se defendant | Court: Plaintiff abused Rule 36; the tactic cannot be ratified—trial court erred in permitting partial ratification |
Key Cases Cited
- General Motors Corp., Chevrolet Motor Div. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 573 N.E.2d 885 (Ind. 1991) (Trial Rule 36(B) is discretionary; court may deny withdrawal even if conditions met)
- Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2012) (characterizes Zavodnik’s litigation practices as abusive and identifies measures courts may take)
- Corby v. Swank, 670 N.E.2d 1322 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (defines ‘prejudice’ under Rule 36(B) as detriment in trial preparation)
- City of Muncie v. Peters, 709 N.E.2d 50 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for Rule 36(B) withdrawal decisions)