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. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.