147 N.E.3d 347
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- Calumet Township issued an invitation to bid for a building sold “as is.” 487 Broadway paid $72,100 and closed on the property.
- Before closing, the Township removed illuminated exterior sign inserts and interior pictures/artifacts; 487 Broadway objected and later sued for negligence and breach of contract asserting those items were fixtures and the exterior was damaged.
- Township filed a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss but attached exhibits (checks, deed, settlement statement, sales disclosure); the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment.
- The trial court gave 487 Broadway 20 days to respond (versus the 30 days required by Trial Rule 56(C)), granted summary judgment for the Township, and denied 487 Broadway’s motions to stay for discovery and to correct error.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the trial court shortened the nonmovant’s response time improperly and considered inadmissible, unverified exhibits—so the Township failed to carry its summary-judgment burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by shortening the nonmovant’s Rule 56 response time and ruling before the 30‑day period expired / without ruling on 56(I) stay for discovery | Court gave only 20 days; 487 Broadway needed full 30 days and time for discovery to present opposing evidence | Court’s order converting the 12(B)(6) motion to summary judgment and its 20‑day deadline were proper | Reversed: Trial Rule 56(C) requires 30 days; court could not shorten the period absent a timely motion under Rule 56(I); granting SJ before 30 days and without ruling on stay was error |
| Whether the Township met its burden as movant by designating admissible evidence to show no genuine issue of material fact | The exhibits relied on by Township were unverified and lacked authentication or accompanying affidavits; they therefore were not proper Rule 56 evidence | Township offered closing-related documents as proof of ownership/transaction and relied on them in support of dismissal/SJ | Reversed: Exhibits were not self‑authenticating and lacked affidavits; Township failed to make a prima facie showing entitling it to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (sets the summary‑judgment standard and burden shifting)
- McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 916 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. 2009) (nonmovant must not be improperly denied its day in court on summary judgment)
- Mitchell v. 10th and The Bypass, LLC, 3 N.E.3d 967 (Ind. 2014) (Trial Rules impose bright‑line procedural requirements)
- Seth v. Midland Funding, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (unsworn/unverified exhibits do not qualify as proper Rule 56 evidence)
- Zelman v. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., 133 N.E.3d 244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (trial courts may consider only properly designated evidence admissible at trial on summary judgment)
- Mut. Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 659 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (generally improper to grant summary judgment while discovery requests are pending)
- Ka v. City of Indianapolis, 954 N.E.2d 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (summary judgment is intended to quickly resolve disputes lacking genuine factual issues)