Joseph Matly and Rima A. Matly v. Citimortgage, Inc. (mem. dec.), 29A04-1608-MF-1761

In 2004 the Matlys executed a $731,250 promissory note secured by a mortgage on Hamilton County property; ABN AMRO later merged into CitiMortgage.
In 2011 CitiMortgage and the Matlys entered a loan modification; the Matlys stopped paying thereafter.
CitiMortgage filed foreclosure in 2013 and pursued settlement/mitigation procedures; multiple motions for summary judgment followed.
CitiMortgage’s first two summary‑judgment motions (2015) were denied because the supporting affidavit relied on unspecified business records; the court allowed CitiMortgage to file a new motion.
A third motion for summary judgment (Feb. 2016) was granted after the Matlys did not timely respond; decree of foreclosure entered and sheriff’s sale occurred.
The Matlys filed a T.R. 60(B) motion for relief and stay shortly before sale; the trial court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly permitted CitiMortgage to file a subsequent motion for summary judgment	CitiMortgage argued it could cure earlier evidentiary defects and renew its motion while the case remained pending	Matlys argued prior denials precluded renewal by claim/issue preclusion (res judicata/collateral estoppel)	Court held renewal was proper; earlier denials were not decisions on the merits and the case remained in fieri, so res judicata did not bar a new motion
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Matlys’ T.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment	CitiMortgage argued the Matlys lacked extraordinary circumstances, failed to respond timely, and offered no meritorious evidence to alter the result	Matlys argued exceptional circumstances justified relief because court had previously denied similar summary‑judgment motions	Court held no abuse of discretion: Matlys did not show extraordinary circumstances nor a prima facie meritorious claim; their emergency was of their own making

Seth v. Midland Funding, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (unspecified business records must be attached or authenticated to support affidavit for summary judgment)
MicroVote General Corp. v. Indiana Election Commission, 924 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (res judicata prevents repetitious litigation of the same disputes)
Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Herr, 834 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (claim and issue preclusion require a decision on the merits before applying res judicata)
Gibson v. Evansville Vanderburgh Building Commission, 725 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (trial court retains inherent power to reconsider rulings while action remains in fieri)
Brimhall v. Brewster, 864 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (T.R. 60(B) relief is equitable and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Baker & Daniels, LLP v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 924 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (T.R. 60(B)(8) requires exceptional circumstances and a prima facie showing of a meritorious claim)