Dissent: new issues can be raised in response

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Parties shouldn't be allowed to raise arguments for the first time in response to a rehearing petition before an appellate court, an Indiana Court of Appeals judge wrote in disagreeing with two of her colleagues.

But the other two judges allowed that to happen in granting a rehearing request in U.S. Bank v. Integrity Land Title Corp, No. 17A03-0812-CV-577, a DeKalb Superior case the appellate court had decided in a June 16 opinion.

The case involves a real estate transaction in early 2006 where Integrity Land Title prepared a title commitment indicating a title search, performed by a subcontractor, had uncovered no judgments against the property seller. The buyer's lender relied on that title commitment and approved a mortgage loan, and Integrity received payment for doing the closing and title search. U.S. Bank eventually got assigned the mortgage from the buyer's lender.

But in August 2006, a judgment lien owner that hadn't been identified by the title search by Integrity initiated a foreclosure action against the buyer and the lender, and U.S. Bank intervened to file a third-party complaint against Integrity because of the search. That complaint alleged that U.S. Bank's "pending loss is a direct and proximate result of negligent real estate closing and certification of title by (its mortgager), through its agent [Integrity]."

In February 2008, the trial court enforced and foreclosed the judgment lien and U.S. Bank later filed a motion for summary judgment against Integrity. Both parties began filing cross-motions, and in September 2008 the trial court denied U.S. Bank's summary judgment motion against Integrity.

The Court of Appeals ruled on the case June 16, reiterating the trial court's finding that Integrity wasn't a party to the policy and owed no contractual duty to U.S. Bank, even though the bank had argued alternative contract theories in its response to summary judgment motions. The panel at the time reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Integrity and remanded, but U.S. Bank later filed a petition for rehearing. In a response brief to that petition, Integrity raised new issues and U.S. Bank asked that part of the response be stricken because it should have been raised in a separate rehearing petition, rather than a response brief.

"U.S. Bank's contentions are well taken, but the interests of justice and judicial economy would be ill served if we were to turn a blind eye to Integrity's arguments, the correctness of which is apparent on the face of the record," Judge Terry Crone wrote, citing precedent that gives a court power to reconsider an order or ruling that isn't yet certified. "Consequently, we exercise our inherent authority to reconsider our original opinion and hereby vacate our reversal of summary judgment on U.S. Bank's contract claim. In other words, we affirm the trial court in all respects."

The judges also invited Integrity to renew any claims it may have in a transfer petition to the state's highest court, but in a four-page dissent Judge Melissa May disagreed with her fellow panel members.

"Our rules do not permit Integrity to raise the contract argument in what it characterizes as its 'response' to the tort argument U.S. Bank raised in its petition for rehearing," she wrote. "Moreover, allowing Integrity to do so in a brief in response to a petition for rehearing is unfair because it effectively deprives U.S. Bank of an opportunity to respond to the contract argument."

The Integrity response brief went outside the rule by raising contract-related matters U.S. Bank had not raised, and in effect it grants Integrity a rehearing it didn't timely request, Judge May found. The original opinion should stand, she said.

Citing her colleague's language in the majority decision, Judge May wrote, "I would decline to adopt the premise that if one litigant's argument 'appears correct,' that is enough to deprive the other litigant of any opportunity to respond to it. I have no authority that would permit such a result, and it is inconsistent with the essential structure of litigation to hold that if a party's initial argument appears convincing, we will not entertain the opponent's response."


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.