Rosina Keller v. Gretchen Cheesman, as Administrator of the City of Muncie Unsafe Building Hearing Authority, and the City of Muncie (mem. dec.), 18A02-1601-MI-188

Owner James Conaster’s Muncie property (house + outbuilding) was inspected after complaints and found unsafe; building commissioner issued initial demolition order on Aug 26, 2014.
Conaster was delinquent on property taxes; Rosina Keller purchased the property at a tax sale on Oct 15, 2014 (certificate with one-year redemption period).
City issued a formal demolition order on Oct 30, 2014 and the Unsafe Building Hearing Authority held hearings on Dec 11, 2014 and Feb 12, 2015; Keller attended both hearings and was recognized as the tax-sale buyer.
The Authority granted a continuance on Dec 11, 2014 conditioned on Keller submitting within 60 days a rehabilitation schedule and proof she could fund $25,000 in repairs; Keller failed to provide proof at the Feb 12, 2015 hearing and the Authority affirmed the demolition order.
Keller sued the Authority Administrator and the City seeking reversal; defendants moved for summary judgment, Keller did not respond or designate opposing evidence, and the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
This appeal challenges the grant of summary judgment; the appellate court affirmed because Keller failed to produce evidence she met the conditions required to avoid demolition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Standing / timeliness to seek judicial review	Keller argued she could challenge the demolition order despite tax-sale status	Defendants argued Keller failed to timely seek review and/or lacked standing	Court noted defendants raised timeliness but affirmed on different ground (failure to meet conditions); assumed standing/timeliness for appeal purposes
2. Whether Keller complied with Authority conditions to avoid demolition	Keller claimed intent to rehabilitate the property	Defendants showed Keller did not provide proof she could fund $25,000 in repairs as required	Court held Keller failed to satisfy the Authority’s conditions, supporting affirmation of the demolition order
3. Effect of Keller’s failure to respond to summary judgment motion	Keller effectively had the chance to oppose but filed no response or evidence	Defendants argued unopposed motion establishes absence of genuine issue of material fact	Court treated the motion as unopposed and relied on defendants’ designated evidence to grant summary judgment
4. Appropriateness of summary judgment	Keller contended the trial court erred in granting summary judgment	Defendants maintained they met the burden showing no genuine factual dispute	Court held summary judgment proper because Keller did not designate contrary evidence and defendants’ evidence showed no genuine issue

Doe v. Adams, 53 N.E.3d 483 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellant bears burden to show summary judgment error)
Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (summary-judgment standard and movant/nonmovant burdens)
Smith v. Delta Tau Delta, 9 N.E.3d 154 (Ind. 2014) (view evidence and inferences in favor of nonmoving party)
Miller v. Danz, 36 N.E.3d 455 (Ind. 2015) (appellate courts may affirm on any theory supported by evidence)
Siner v. Kindred Hosp. Ltd. Partnership, 51 N.E.3d 1184 (Ind. 2016) (movant bears heavy factual burden to show absence of genuine issue)
Brown v. Banta, 682 N.E.2d 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (affirming summary judgment where nonmovant failed to timely respond)