McKinley, Inc a/k/a McKinley Associates, Inc. d/b/a Summer Wood Apartment Homes v. Michelle Skyllas, 77 N.E.3d 818

Plaintiff Michelle Skyllas sued McKinley for a 2009 slip-and-fall; McKinley filed third-party claims against Snow Pros.
Skyllas was represented by Samuel Vazanellis, who was largely uncommunicative and later suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court for noncooperation.
McKinley served requests for admissions (including dispositive admissions that Skyllas had no evidence of negligence or damages) on May 13, 2016; Skyllas, through Vazanellis, failed to respond.
McKinley moved for summary judgment based on the deemed admissions and obtained judgment on August 30, 2016.
Skyllas learned of her counsel’s suspension and the summary judgment in late summer 2016, retained new counsel, and filed a Trial Rule 59 motion to correct error and a motion to withdraw/amend admissions.
The trial court granted both motions, vacated summary judgment, and allowed withdrawal/amendment of the admissions; McKinley appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Skyllas)	Defendant's Argument (McKinley)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by granting Skyllas’ Trial Rule 59 motion to correct error (i.e., faulting counsel, not client)	Vazanellis’ conduct effectively obliterated the attorney-client relationship; his failures should not be imputed to Skyllas	The summary judgment was properly entered based on unresponded requests for admission and Skyllas’ failure to oppose the motion	Court: T.R.59 relief improper; no showing of newly discovered evidence or procedural error — summary judgment was properly entered
Whether the trial court erred by granting Skyllas’ post-judgment motion to withdraw/amend admissions (and effectively granting relief under T.R.60(B))	Withdrawal appropriate because counsel’s misconduct excused Skyllas’ failure to respond; analogizes to attorney-misconduct cases relieving clients	Post-judgment withdrawal was procedurally inappropriate; attorney negligence is ordinarily imputed to the client unless misconduct obliterates the relationship	Court (on review of 60(B) standards): attorney’s negligence here is attributable to client; Rose is distinguishable; relief improperly granted — trial court’s reinstatement of judgment required

Santelli v. Rahmatullah, 993 N.E.2d 167 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for motion to correct error)
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 573 N.E.2d 885 (Ind. 1991) (standard for reviewing motion to withdraw admissions)
Rose v. Rose, 390 N.E.2d 1056 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) (attorney misconduct may obliterate attorney-client relationship and prevent imputation)
Ferrara v. Genduso, 14 N.E.2d 580 (Ind. 1938) (attorney negligence ordinarily imputed to client; denial of relief from judgment upheld)