12 N.E.3d 955
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- AFC sued Somerville Auto Transport and Souza on Counts I–III, alleging breach of contract, guaranty liability, and fraud in connection with a line of credit and purchases of autos.
- Somerville had executed a 2002 Demand Promissory Note and Security Agreement enabling advances against a credit line; Souza signed a personal guaranty.
- A 2006 Representation Authorization Letter authorized Merenciano to buy/sell autos for Somerville; a 2007 Representation Removal Letter revoked that authority.
- Between Sept 2006 and Feb 2007 Merenciano purchased autos using AFC funds; Somerville did not timely repay the indebtedness.
- June 28, 2011: trial court dismissed the case under Trial Rule 41(E) for inactivity; July 6, 2011: court reinstated on active docket; September 9, 2011: court denied Somerville’s motion to reconsider.
- February 2013: summary judgment granted to AFC on Counts I–II; June 2013: final judgment and attorney fees against Somerville and Souza.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse discretion reinstating the case? | Somerville: reinstatement improper; 41(F) requires 60(B) for prejudice; 60(A) not for substantive errors. | AFC: 60(A) correction permissible for clerical/oversight errors; lack of 41(E) hearing voids dismissal; reinstatement appropriate. | Yes; court did not abuse discretion in reinstating |
| Did the court err in granting summary judgment to AFC on Counts I–II? | Somerville: issues of apparent authority and notice create genuine fact questions. | AFC: agency authority established by representation letter; Somerville’s evidence fails to create material factual dispute. | No; summary judgment affirmed for AFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallant Ins. Co. v. Isaac, 751 N.E.2d 672 (Ind. 2001) (apparent authority requires principal's manifestation to third party)
- Cain Family Farm, L.P. v. Schrader Real Estate & Auction Co., Inc., 991 N.E.2d 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (test for apparent authority in agency relationships)
- Rumfelt v. Himes, 438 N.E.2d 980 (Ind. 1982) (hearing requirement for dismissal under Rule 41(E))
- Metcalf v. Estate of Hastings, 726 N.E.2d 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (hearing sufficiency when court orders hearing)
- Wright v. Miller, 989 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2013) (hearing requirement impact on dismissal sanction)
- Rosentrater v. Rosentrater, 708 N.E.2d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (clerical mistakes; 60(A) corrective authority)