M. Shane Faulkinbury, by his next friends/guardians John M. Faulkinbury and Olivia J. Faulkinbury v. Michael Broshears and BAM Outdoor, Inc.
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 797
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- June 1, 2005 motor-vehicle incident between Shane Faulkinbury and Michael Broshears; parties dispute whether Michael struck Shane with a two-by-four after backing into Shane’s car or whether Shane struck Michael’s truck and then punched Michael.
- Shane later became incapacitated from a traumatic brain injury; his parents were appointed as his guardians in 2006 and filed suit on his behalf in 2007 alleging battery, trespass to chattel, and mischief.
- BAM (Michael and his company) counterclaimed, alleging Guardians’ suit was groundless/frivolous and sought attorney fees.
- BAM obtained summary judgment on both the tort claim and its counterclaim after the trial court struck key Guardian evidence (father’s affidavit and a photo) and struck Guardians’ late response to BAM’s summary-judgment motion on the counterclaim. The court later awarded BAM damages and attorneys’ fees.
- Shortly after final judgment, Shane regained memory/competence and Guardians filed a Trial Rule 59(A)(1) motion to correct error based on three affidavits (Shane, his mother, and his treating physician) asserting newly discovered, admissible evidence that contradicted BAM’s version. The trial court denied the motion without explanation.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Rule 59(A)(1) motion because the newly discovered affidavits were admissible, material, noncumulative, not merely impeaching, discoverable only after the judgment, and likely to produce a different result at retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying Trial Rule 59(A)(1) motion based on newly discovered evidence | Newly discovered affidavits (Shane, mother, treating physician) show Shane regained competence and provide first-person, admissible evidence creating a genuine factual dispute; relief under Rule 59(A)(1) is appropriate | The affidavits cannot be considered because (a) evidence obtained after a summary-judgment order cannot be used to revise it (relying on Mitchell), and (b) Shane remains incompetent because of guardianship; Guardians also missed deadlines earlier | Reversed: trial court may consider Rule 59(A)(1) affidavits; Mitchell does not bar Rule 59(A)(1) relief; Shane is not per se incompetent due to guardianship; denial of motion was an abuse of discretion and case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Holmes, 885 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2008) (explains relation of Trial Rules 59(A)(1) and 60(B) for newly discovered evidence and cautions courts to balance finality and injustice)
- Mitchell v. 10th and the Bypass, LLC, 3 N.E.3d 967 (Ind. 2014) (trial court modifying a nonfinal summary-judgment order may consider only Rule 56 materials before it when the order was entered; does not preclude Rule 59(A)(1) review of final judgments)
- Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997) (adjudication of inability to manage affairs does not automatically render a person incompetent to testify)
- Scales v. Scales, 891 N.E.2d 1116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard: review of denial of motion to correct error for abuse of discretion)