Eric Brazier d/b/a Brazier Painting v. Maple Lane Apartments I, LLC
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 690
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Brazier performed as-needed painting at Maple Lane Apartments for years via its property manager, Sue Papaj; payment was by invoice and checks from corporate.
- After being told in early 2010 to stop work, Brazier brought many invoices, including ~99 identical invoices dated April 30, 2010 for an alleged Bay Window Project covering most buildings.
- Brazier sued Maple Lane in May 2011 for $63,995 on account, attaching 114 invoices he described as copies of invoices he had submitted.
- Maple Lane answered, disputing nonpayment and alleging double billing; it also later moved to compel discovery and sought sanctions.
- At trial the court found Papaj credible and Brazier not credible, excluded the invoices after testimony showed they were created for litigation with counsel’s assistance, entered judgment for Maple Lane, and imposed $5,000 in sanctions against Brazier’s counsel for misrepresenting the invoices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred denying Brazier's motion for partial summary judgment (judicial-admission theory) | Maple Lane's answer admitted the contract and performance, so the answer was a judicial admission as to the invoices and liability | The answer was inartfully drafted but did not admit the specific Bay Window Project or that all attached invoices were valid and unpaid | Affirmed — answer did not constitute a judicial admission on the Bay Window Project or all invoices; genuine fact issues existed (invoice irregularities; contrary affidavits) |
| Whether the trial court erred by excluding the ~100 Bay Window invoices at trial | Invoices were "copies" of originals submitted to Maple Lane and therefore admissible and probative | Invoices were created after termination in preparation for litigation with counsel’s assistance; provenance unreliable | No abuse of discretion — exclusion proper given questionable provenance and limited to non-prejudicial effect; even if error, not inconsistent with substantial justice |
| Whether the judgment for Maple Lane is clearly erroneous (contract, quantum meruit, account stated) | Brazier claimed work was requested/performed and unpaid (theory varied: account stated, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment) | Maple Lane disputed request/performance for the Bay Window Project and alleged double billing; Papaj credibly denied authorizing/observing that work | Affirmed — trial court credited Papaj; no contract or implied request proven for the Bay Window Project and Brazier failed to prove elements of quantum meruit or account stated |
| Whether sanctions against Brazier's counsel were improper | Sanctions unwarranted; no legal or factual basis | Counsel repeatedly represented invoices were authentic copies though they were created for litigation; this misrepresentation justified sanctions under Trial Rule 11 | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion imposing $5,000 sanction for counsel's misrepresentations regarding invoice authenticity |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinberger v. Boyer, 956 N.E.2d 1095 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (definition and effect of a judicial admission)
- Lutz v. Erie Ins. Exch., 848 N.E.2d 675 (Ind. 2006) (statements in pleadings may be taken as true; parties must be able to rely on admissions)
- Manley v. Sherer, 992 N.E.2d 670 (Ind. 2013) (summary-judgment standard)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (summary-judgment burdens)
- Meredith v. Pence, 984 N.E.2d 1213 (Ind. 2013) (review limited to evidence designated to the trial court on summary judgment)
- Amaya v. Brater, 981 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (appellant’s burden to show summary-judgment error)
- Woodruff v. Ind. Family & Servs. Admin., 964 N.E.2d 784 (Ind. 2012) (elements of quantum meruit/unjust enrichment)
- Old Nat'l Bank v. Kelly, 31 N.E.3d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (elements of breach of contract)
- Johnson v. Wait, 947 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Jackson v. Trancik, 953 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (definition of account stated)