254 N.E.3d 531
Ind. Ct. App.2025Background
- Midwest Holdings-Indianapolis, LLC (owned by Katherine Bleier) listed a property for sale in Indianapolis with Bleier's husband, James Bleier, acting as the real estate broker.
- Prospective Buyers, Hennessy and Yaser, through their agent Mandresh, attempted to purchase the property, leading to ambiguous negotiations and conflicting claims on whether a binding contract was formed.
- Bleier marked the purchase agreement as “countered” but did not provide a counteroffer, while subsequent actions by both parties suggested an assumption of an agreement.
- Midwest Holdings sold the property to NAC (owned by Fall’s wife) for a higher price while the status of the agreement with Prospective Buyers was in dispute.
- Prospective Buyers sued after being unable to finalize the purchase, leading to state and subsequent federal litigation involving breach of contract, tort claims, and filings of lis pendens notices.
- Summary judgment rulings in federal court held, among other things, that no binding contract was ever formed and that claims related to title slander and tortious interference failed; the state court then addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and a motion to amend the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary judgment on malicious prosecution | Suit was justified; probable cause existed | Plaintiffs acted with malice, lacked PC | Prospective Buyers had probable cause; SJ for Plaintiffs |
| Summary judgment on abuse of process | Actions/procedures were proper | Plaintiffs misused process for ulterior | No abuse of process; SJ for Plaintiffs |
| Summary judgment on breach of contract | Contract existed, or factual dispute | No contract; claim is res judicata | No contract; claim precluded by res judicata; SJ for Def. |
| Motion to amend complaint | New evidence warranted new claim | Undue delay; facts long known; prejudice | Denial upheld; amendment unduly delayed and prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Mayer v. Lax, Inc., 998 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (lists the elements for a malicious prosecution claim)
- Brown v. Indianapolis Hous. Agency, 971 N.E.2d 181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (defines inferring malice in malicious prosecution)
- Waterfield v. Waterfield, 61 N.E.3d 314 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (sets elements for abuse of process)
- HERCO, LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 167 N.E.3d 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (discusses res judicata elements and application)
- Hilliard v. Jacobs, 927 N.E.2d 393 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (criteria for denying leave to amend a complaint after delay)