163 N.E.3d 323
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Ranger (seller) and Caccavale (buyer) signed a Purchase Agreement for ~13 acres; sections J ("Flood Area/Other") and K ("Inspections") were central to the dispute.
- Buyer obtained a pre-closing soil inspection reporting wetlands and that Starke County would refuse a septic permit; buyer refused to close and tendered a mutual release which Ranger refused.
- Ranger sued for breach and sought specific performance; Judge Pera granted summary judgment on liability for Ranger (denying rescission) but reserved remedy/damages and did not enter final written judgment on liability.
- At a later damages hearing before a different judge (Webber), testimony about wetlands/septic and permit denial was presented; Judge Webber reversed Pera’s partial summary judgment, entered judgment for Caccavale, and relied in part on that hearing testimony.
- Appellant moved to correct error arguing due process and that the court improperly relied on evidence not designated in the summary-judgment phase; the Court of Appeals held no due process violation but reversed and remanded because the trial court abused its discretion by considering testimony introduced after the summary-judgment designation deadline.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by reconsidering and reversing partial summary judgment based on evidence presented at the damages hearing | Ranger: Reconsideration violated due process and relied on "ambush" testimony presented after summary-judgment designations | Caccavale: Trial court may revisit interlocutory rulings under Trial Rules; summary-judgment on liability was not final so reconsideration permitted | Court: No due process violation, but reversal was an abuse of discretion when based on testimony not designated in summary-judgment proceedings; reversed and remanded (citing Mitchell) |
| Proper construction of Sec. J (flood-only vs. separate location-based use limitations) | Ranger: Sec. J is a flood-plain provision only; rescission requires flood-plain condition | Caccavale: Sec. J also provides a separate contingency for any location-based building/use limitations materially interfering with intended use | Court: Majority declined to decide the merits on appeal and remanded; concurrence would hold Sec. J contains two separate contingencies and favor buyer on that legal point |
| Effect of Sec. K inspection waiver on buyer’s rescission claim based on inability to obtain septic permit | Ranger: K’s waiver bars buyer’s claim as a waived "condition of the Property" and Ranger could have cured | Caccavale: K applies to inspections of existing improvements, not location-based permit limitations | Court: Majority did not resolve; concurrence would treat septic-permit denial as a location-based use limitation not barred by the inspection waiver |
| Whether summary-judgment evidentiary materials were properly limited by Trial Rule 56 when court reconsidered earlier ruling | Ranger: Only materials designated before the original summary judgment could be considered | Caccavale: Trial court has discretion to reconsider interlocutory orders | Court: Trial court must consider only Rule 56 materials that were before it at the time the original order was entered when revisiting summary judgment; consideration of later hearing testimony was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. 10th and The Bypass, LLC, 3 N.E.3d 967 (Ind. 2014) (when reconsidering summary judgment, court may consider only Rule 56 materials that were before it when the original order was entered)
- Santelli v. Rahmatullah, 993 N.E.2d 167 (Ind. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review of motion to correct error)
- Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc. v. United Equip. Leasing, LLC, 10 N.E.3d 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing reconsideration of trial-court rulings)
- Bruno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 850 N.E.2d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Care Grp. Heart Hosp., LLC v. Sawyer, 93 N.E.3d 745 (Ind. 2018) (contract interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Alexander v. Linkmeyer Dev. II, LLC, 119 N.E.3d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (summary-judgment review standard mirrors trial court's application)