ILNews

COA finds court erred in allowing late response to be filed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the denial of summary judgment for a financial company seeking contract damages and other relief, finding the trial court should not have considered the defendant’s late-filed response on summary judgment.

In DeLage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. Community Mental Health Center, Inc., No. 15A05-1107-CC-366, DeLage Landen Financial Services filed a complaint against Community Mental Health Center Inc. for breach of contract involving copy machines. DLL filed a motion for summary judgment. CMHC, pursuant to Trial Rule 56(C), had 30 days to respond. CMHC did not respond within that time frame, but later filed a motion for enlargement of time to file response to motion for summary judgment and simultaneously filed its response to DLL’s motion for summary judgment.
 
The trial court eventually granted CMHC permission to file its belated response and denied DLL’s motion for summary judgment.

The judges determined that because CMHC failed to file a response or request an extension of time within the prescribed time, the trial court had no discretion to alter the time limits in Trial Rule 56. CMHC’s belated response should have been stricken, and the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the response to be filed and considered on summary judgment.

The COA also found the trial court erred in denying summary judgment to DLL and remanded for further proceedings.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT