Rueth Development Company and Rueth Development Company d/b/a Superior Lumber Company v. H&H Rueth, Inc. (mem. dec.)
45A03-1608-CP-1821
| Ind. Ct. App. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- RDC sued H&H in 1992 for unpaid building materials and lots; H&H answered and a jury trial was set for June 1995.
- Parties executed a written release/settlement around May 1995, which required RDC to dismiss the action with prejudice; RDC did not dismiss.
- H&H filed a verified motion for summary judgment in 1995; the court set a hearing for August 10, 1995 and granted RDC two extensions to respond, but RDC never filed a timely response.
- A hearing occurred on August 10, 1995 and the court took H&H’s motion under advisement; no ruling was entered for over 20 years.
- In 2016 RDC submitted materials opposing the 1995 motion; the trial court refused to consider those untimely filings and, after a July 2016 hearing, granted H&H’s 1995 motion for summary judgment.
- RDC appealed, arguing that H&H was not entitled to summary judgment even absent RDC’s late materials; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could refuse to consider RDC’s response and exhibits filed more than 20 years after H&H’s 1995 summary judgment motion | RDC argued the late submissions should be considered and that summary judgment was improper | H&H argued Trial Rule 56(c) bars consideration of opposing materials filed after the allowed period and RDC’s filings were untimely by decades | Court held the 2016 materials were untimely and could not be considered under Trial Rule 56(c), so exclusion was proper |
| Whether H&H was nevertheless entitled to summary judgment based on the designated record (1995 motion and supporting documents) | RDC contended that even without opposing affidavits, H&H was not automatically entitled to judgment | H&H maintained its 1995 motion and supporting materials established there was no genuine issue of material fact | Court held RDC failed to meet its burden to show a genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for H&H affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- DiMaggio v. Rosario, 52 N.E.2d 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (standard for affirming summary judgment and deference to trial court)
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment standard and definitions of material and genuine issues)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (discussion of summary judgment review standard)
- Borsuk v. Town of St. John, 820 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 2005) (untimely affidavits/opposition to summary judgment cannot be considered)