Indy Auto Man, LLC v. Keown & Kratz, LLC, and Dustin Stohler, 84 N.E.3d 718

Indy Auto Man, LLC (IAM) was sued by customers over vehicle purchases and retained attorney Dustin Stohler, who was affiliated with Keown & Kratz, LLC (K&K) as "of counsel."
Stohler abandoned his duties; he failed to respond to discovery and a motion for default, resulting in a default judgment (including treble damages) against IAM.
IAM later hired new counsel who settled the default judgments for reduced amounts and then sued K&K and Stohler for legal malpractice.
K&K filed for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty to IAM because IAM was not the firm’s client and any agency was limited to Stohler’s role; K&K also asserted a counterclaim for attorney fees.
The trial court granted summary judgment for K&K on IAM’s malpractice claims and for IAM on K&K’s fee counterclaim, but did not adjudicate claims against Stohler and did not include the Trial Rule 56(C) "magic language."
IAM appealed; the Court of Appeals concluded the summary-judgment order was not a final, appealable judgment and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court s summary-judgment order was final and appealable	IAM treated the summary-judgment ruling for K&K as appealable and argued merits (genuine issues of fact exist)	K&K proceeded as if its summary judgment was dispositive; jurisdictional issue not addressed by parties	Order was not final because it disposed of claims as to only one of two defendants and lacked Trial Rule 56(C) "no just reason for delay" language; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether K&K owed a duty of care to IAM (merits of malpractice claim)	IAM contended K&K could be liable for malpractice arising from Stohler s conduct	K&K argued IAM was not the firm s client and any agency with Stohler was limited, so no duty	Court did not reach the merits due to lack of appellate jurisdiction over non-final order

In re Estate of Botkins, 970 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (discussing final-judgment requirement and appellate jurisdiction)
Front Row Motors, LLC v. Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753 (Ind. 2014) (appellate jurisdiction governs appeals from final judgments)
Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. 2003) (parties and trial court cannot confer jurisdiction over non-appealable orders)
Martin v. Amoco Oil Co., 696 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. 1998) (requiring strict compliance with Trial Rule 54(B) to render partial judgments final)
Bueter v. Brinkman, 776 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (definition of final judgment)
In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574 (Ind. 2017) (timeliness of notice of appeal vs. appellate jurisdiction)