James T. Mitchell v. 10th and The Bypass, LLC and Elway, Inc.
2014 Ind. LEXIS 152
| Ind. | 2014Background
- This environmental action involves alleged release of hazardous substances at a Bloomington dry-cleaning site under Indiana’s ELA and dumping statutes.
- Mitchell moved for partial summary judgment (6/30/2009) arguing no personal liability; LLC sought to impose liability on him (9/3/2009) with supporting exhibits.
- The trial court granted Mitchell’s partial summary judgment (1/11/2010) and denied LLC’s motion.
- Approximately a year later, LLC obtained Susan Johnson’s statements alleging Mitchell’s personal involvement in a PERC spill and cleanup actions.
- LLC moved to vacate the order under Trial Rule 54(B), attaching the new evidence; the trial court vacated, relying on revision of a non-final order.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to resolve governing rules for revising non-final orders and relief from judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May new evidence after a non-final summary judgment support vacating that order? | Mitchell contends Rule 56 limits, and there was no timely submission. | LLC argues post-order evidence should be considered to revise the non-final order. | Not allowed; revision limited to timely, pre-existing Rule 56 materials. |
| Whether Rule 60(B) relief can apply to non-final orders after 2008 amendment? | Mitchell argues Rule 60(B) is restricted to final judgments. | LLC argues Rule 60(B) may apply to non-final orders after amendment. | Yes; 2008 amendment permits relief from non-final orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fields, 842 N.E.2d 804 (Ind. 2006) (Rule 60(B) relief previously limited to final judgments; later interpretation acknowledged non-final relief options)
- Borsuk v. Town of St. John, 820 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 2005) (no late-filed Rule 56 evidence after 30 days for non-moving party)
- HomEq Servicing Corp. v. Baker, 883 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. 2008) (clarified treatment of post-deadline affidavits under Rule 56(C))
- Desai v. Croy, 805 N.E.2d 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (bright-line rule restricting late Rule 56 filings)
- In re Estate of Hammar, 847 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for reconsideration or modification)
- Pond v. Pond, 700 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. 1998) (trial court power to reconsider while case is in fieri)