Michael J. Quinn and Caroline Quinn v. Conifer Insurance Company and City of Kokomo (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 06 2019, 7:24 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Dan J. May CONIFER INSURANCE CO.
Kokomo, Indiana Crystal G. Rowe
Kightlinger & Gray, LLP
New Albany, Indiana
Ginny L. Peterson
Kightlinger & Gray, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
CITY OF KOKOMO
Caren L. Pollack
Zachary J. Stock
Pollack Law Firm, P.C.
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 1 of 19
Michael J. Quinn and Caroline June 6, 2019
Quinn, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellants-Plaintiffs, 18A-PL-2504
Appeal from the Howard Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Brant J. Perry,
Conifer Insurance Company and Judge
City of Kokomo,
Appellees-Defendants. Trial Court Cause No.
34D02-1707-PL-567
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Michael and Caroline Quinn (collectively, “the Quinns”) filed suit against the
City of Kokomo (“the City”) and Conifer Insurance Company (“Conifer”),
their homeowners insurance provider, alleging property damage and breach of
contract. Both the City and Conifer provided the Quinns with discovery
requests. The Quinns failed to respond to these requests. The City and Conifer
filed motions to compel discovery, both of which were granted by the trial
court. They each moved to dismiss the action after the Quinns again failed to
respond to the requests. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motions
to dismiss, granting the Quinns an additional thirty days to respond to the
requests. The trial court warned the Quinns that failure to respond within the
additional thirty days could result in dismissal of the action. The City and
Conifer renewed their motions to dismiss after the Quinns failed to respond
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 2 of 19
within the time allotted by the trial court. The trial court granted the renewed
motions, dismissing the action with prejudice. The Quinns subsequently filed a
motion to correct error, which was denied by the trial court.
[2] On appeal, the Quinns contend that the trial court abused its discretion in
granting the City’s and Conifer’s motions to compel. The Quinns also contend
that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the renewed motions to
dismiss without first holding a hearing. Concluding that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in either regard, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On July 13, 2017, the Quinns filed suit against the City and Conifer, alleging
that they had suffered property damage when a garbage truck operated by the
City “pulled down” the electrical pole and powerlines servicing the Quinns’
residence, causing a power spike that damaged their appliances and electric
wiring. Conifer’s App. Vol. II p. 7. The Quinns additionally alleged that
Conifer breached its duty to deal with them in good faith.
I. Facts Relating to Motions to Compel Discovery
[4] The City served discovery requests upon the Quinns on September 27, 2017.
The Quinns failed to respond to the requests by the October 27, 2017 deadline.
The City made attempts to informally resolve the matter with the Quinns on
November 13 and December 4, 2017. These attempts were unsuccessful,
leading the City to file a motion to compel on December 11, 2017. The trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 3 of 19
court granted the City’s motion to compel on December 15, 2017, and ordered
the Quinns to respond to the City’s discovery requests within ten days of the
order “or face sanctions.” Appellants’ App. Vol. II p. 17. The Quinns did not
respond to the City’s requests in the time set forth by the trial court.
[5] Conifer served discovery requests upon the Quinns on December 21, 2017. The
Quinns failed to respond to the requests by the January 23, 2018 deadline.
Conifer made attempts to informally resolve the matter with the Quinns on
January 26, February 1, and February 22, 2018. These attempts were
unsuccessful, leading Conifer to file a motion to compel on February 27, 2018.
The trial court granted Conifer’s motion to compel on March 5, 2018, and
ordered the Quinns to “answer fully and without evasion” Conifer’s discovery
requests within twenty days of the order. Appellants’ App. Vol. II p. 6. The
Quinns did not respond to Conifer’s requests in the time set forth by the trial
court.
II. Facts Relating to Motions to Dismiss
[6] The City filed a motion to dismiss on January 17, 2018. On February 1, 2018,
Conifer moved to join the City’s motion to dismiss. The trial court conducted a
hearing on the motions on April 4, 2018. During this hearing, the Quinns’
counsel filed an affidavit in which he stated that he had failed to comply with
the trial court’s orders and timely respond to the discovery requests for the
following reasons: (1) counsel had suffered a subdural hematoma after falling
on ice during the first week of January 2018; (2) on March 5, 2018, counsel was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 4 of 19
forced to undergo surgery; (3) counsel had suffered from certain neurological
deficits, including memory loss and issues with coordination, that impacted his
ability to work; and (4) counsel had been prescribed certain medications that
impacted his ability to work.1 Apparently persuaded by the Quinns’ counsel’s
explanations, the trial court denied the motions to dismiss in an order dated
April 10, 2018. In denying the motions, the trial court explicitly ordered the
Quinns “to respond to all discovery requests from [Conifer and the City] within
30 days” and warned the Quinns that “[f]ailure to respond to the requests may
result in this cause being dismissed.” Conifer’s App. Vol. II p. 36.
[7] Conifer and the City renewed their motions to dismiss after the Quinns failed to
comply with the trial court’s April 10, 2018 order. The trial court granted the
renewed motions without holding a new hearing.
III. Facts Relating to Motion to Correct Error
[8] On August 6, 2018, the Quinns filed a motion to correct error, arguing that the
trial court was required to conduct a hearing before granting the renewed
motions to dismiss and that they were prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to
do so. The trial court conducted a hearing on the Quinns’ motion to correct
error on September 13, 2018, during which (1) counsel for the Quinns explained
that he believed he had complied with the trial court’s April 10, 2018 order, (2)
1
Counsel for the Quinns did not provide any explanation for his failure to comply with the trial court’s
orders or provide any response prior to suffering the subdural hematoma in January of 2018.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 5 of 19
counsel for Conifer and the City indicated that they had not received adequate
responses to their discovery requests and that attempts to discuss the Quinns’
inadequate responses with the Quinns’ counsel were unsuccessful, and (3) the
trial court noted that given the Quinns’ months-long delay in providing any
response, it was “pretty disingenuous” for the Quinns’ counsel to argue that
counsel for Conifer or the City should have done more in their attempts to
obtain the requested discovery. Tr. Vol. II p. 10. The trial court denied the
Quinns’ motion to correct error in an order dated September 17, 2018.
Discussion and Decision
[9] The Quinns appeal following the denial of their motion to correct error.
“Generally, a trial court has wide discretion to correct errors, and we will
reverse only for an abuse of that discretion.” Wurster Const. Co. v. Essex Ins. Co.,
918 N.E.2d 666, 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “An abuse of discretion occurs
when the trial court’s action is against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before it and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom, or is
based on impermissible reasons or considerations.” Id.
I. Motions to Compel Discovery
[10] “The trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on the issues of
discovery, and this court will interfere only when an abuse of discretion is
apparent.” Hatfield v. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp., 676 N.E.2d 395, 399 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1997). “We will find an abuse of discretion only when the result reached
by the trial court is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 6 of 19
circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable and actual
deductions flowing therefrom.” Id.
A. Whether the Trial Court Must Conduct a Hearing Prior to
Granting a Motion to Compel Discovery
[11] The Quinns argue that the trial court abused its discretion by granting Conifer’s
and the City’s motions because the trial court was required to conduct a hearing
before ruling on the motions.
If a party refuses to allow inspection under Rule 9.2(E), or if a
deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted
under Rule 30 or 31, or an organization, including without
limitation a governmental organization or a partnership, fails to
make designation under Rule 30(B)(6) or 31(A), or a party fails to
answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a party or
witness or other person, in response to a request submitted under
Rule 34, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as
requested or fails to permit inspection as requested, the
discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer,
or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance
with the request. When taking a deposition on oral examination,
the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the
examination before he applies for an order.
If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, it may make
such protective order as it would have been empowered to make
on a motion made pursuant to Rule 26(C).
Ind. R. Trial P. 37(A)(2). Contrary to the Quinns’ assertion, Trial Rule 37(A)
does not require that the trial court hold a hearing before ruling on a motion to
compel.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 7 of 19
[12] The Quinns argue that our opinion in Walker v. McCrea, 725 N.E.2d 526 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2000), “seems to indicate that a hearing on the motion to compel is
required.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. However, Walker discusses the Trial Rule
37(A)(4) requirement that the trial court conduct a hearing if, after ruling on a
motion to compel, the trial court considers a request for attorney’s fees or
expenses. Trial Rule 37(A)(4) provides
If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for
hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct
necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such
conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the
reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including
attorney’s fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the
motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances
make an award of expenses unjust.
[13] Given that this case does not involve a claim for fees or expenses, Trial Rule
37(A)(4) is inapposite. Further, the Quinns have pointed to no authority, and
we are aware of none, indicating that a Trial Rule 37(A)(2) requires that a trial
court conduct a hearing before granting a motion to compel discovery. The
trial court, therefore, was not required to hold a hearing before granting
Conifer’s and the City’s motions to compel discovery.
B. Whether the Motions Complied with Trial Rule 26(F)
[14] The Quinns alternatively argue that the trial court abused its discretion in
granting the motions to compel because the motions did not comply with Trial
Rule 26(F). Trial Rule 26(F) provides that before any party files a motion to
compel discovery pursuant to Trial Rule 37, the party shall:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 8 of 19
(1) Make a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the
opposing party concerning the matter which is the subject of the
motion or request; and
(2) Include in the motion or request a statement showing that the
attorney making the motion or request has made a reasonable
effort to reach agreement with the opposing attorney(s)
concerning the matter(s) set forth in the motion or request. This
statement shall recite, in addition, the date, time and place of this
effort to reach agreement, whether in person or by phone, and
the names of all parties and attorneys participating therein. If an
attorney for any party advises the court in writing that an
opposing attorney has refused or delayed meeting and discussing
the issues covered in this subsection (F), the court may take such
action as is appropriate.
Trial Rule 26(F).
[15] As it relates to the City’s motion, the City served discovery requests upon the
Quinns on September 27, 2017. The Quinns’ responses were due on October
27, 2017. The Quinns did not respond. The City filed a motion to compel on
December 11, 2017. The City’s motion detailed attempts by the City’s counsel
to resolve the discovery dispute before filing the motion to compel, stating:
2. On November 13, 2017, [the City’s] counsel sent
correspondence to [the Quinns’] counsel, asking that he comply
with the discovery requests within ten (10) days, or advise if
additional time was needed to respond. No reply to that
correspondence was received.
3. On or about December 4, 2017, [the City’s] counsel’s office
spoke with Harmony at [the Quinns’] counsel’s office, requesting
a status update. Harmony advised she would look into the
matter, but no further communication from [the Quinns’]
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 9 of 19
counsel’s office was received following this conversation.
4. As of the date of this motion, [the Quinns’] counsel has failed
to comply with discovery and has made no effort to
communicate with undersigned counsel regarding same.
Appellants’ App. Vol. II p. 15.
[16] As for Conifer’s motion, Conifer served discovery requests upon the Quinns on
December 21, 2017. The Quinns’ responses were due on January 23, 2018.
The Quinns did not respond. Conifer filed a motion to compel of February 27,
2018. Conifer’s motion detailed attempts by Conifer’s counsel to resolve the
discovery dispute before filing the motion to compel, stating:
3. On January 26, 2018, counsel for Conifer wrote to counsel for
the Quinns with regard to the overdue discovery, and it advised
that said correspondence served as its informal attempt to resolve
the discovery matter pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 26(F).…
4. On February 1, 2018, counsel for Conifer filed, with this
Court, its Joinder to Defendant City of Kokomo’s Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Expand the Dismissal to Apply to All
Defendants in which paragraph 14 indicates that Conifer would
be filing this Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to
Defendant’s Discovery Requests if the Quinns failed to respond
to the aforementioned letter, dated January 26, 2018, or serve
their responses to Conifer’s written discovery requests by
February 5, 2018.
5. The Quinns’ counsel has not responded in any manner to
Conifer’s counsels January 26, 2018 letter or Joinder to
Defendant City of Kokomo’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
expand the Dismissal to Apply to All Defendants.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 10 of 19
6. In the evening of February 22, 2018, the undersigned counsel
attempted to discuss this matter telephonically with the Quinns’
counsel to alleviate the need for this Motion to Compel, and the
voice mail message the undersigned counsel left for the Quinns’
counsel on February 22, 2018 has not been returned.
7. As of this date, the Quinns have failed to respond to Conifer’s
discovery responses.
Conifer’s App. Vol. II pp. 19–20.
[17] Both motions detailed the attempts by counsel for Conifer and the City to
resolve the discovery disputes before requesting that the trial court compel
discovery. In granting the motions to compel, the trial court found these
attempts to be reasonable. The Quinns have failed to convince us that the trial
court abused its discretion in this regard.
II. Motions to Dismiss
[18] The Quinns also contend that the trial court abused its discretion by granting
Conifer’s and the City’s renewed motions to dismiss without first holding a
hearing. In seeking dismissal of the action, Conifer relied on Trial Rule 37 and
the City relied on Trial Rules 37 and 41(E). The Indiana Supreme Court has
indicated that a hearing should be held regardless of whether dismissal is sought
under Trial Rule 37 or Trial Rule 41(E). See Wright v. Miller, 989 N.E.2d 324,
328 n.3 (Ind. 2013) (“[I]n light of the gravity of the sanction of dismissal, we
believe that the hearing required by Trial Rule 41(E) should henceforth likewise
be held when a case dismissal is sought or contemplated under Trial Rule 37.”);
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 11 of 19
see also Pfaffenberger v. Jackson Cty. Reg’l Sewer Dist., 785 N.E.2d 1180, 1185 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2003) (recognizing that when a motion to dismiss is filed, the trial
court must ordinarily conduct a hearing thereon to determine whether the
requested action is justified). Thus, the trial court was required to hold a
hearing before dismissing the case. Given that the trial court held a hearing on
the initial motions to dismiss, the question becomes whether the trial court was
required to hold a second hearing before granting Conifer’s and the City’s
renewed motions.
[19] The trial court held a hearing on Conifer’s and the City’s original motions to
dismiss on April 4, 2018. During this hearing, the Quinns provided an
explanation for their failure to respond to the discovery requests. The trial
court was apparently persuaded by the Quinns’ explanation and, in an order
dated April 10, 2018, denied the motions to dismiss on the condition that the
Quinns would comply with the discovery requests within thirty days. In
granting the Quinns the additional thirty days to respond, the trial court warned
the Quinns that “[f]ailure to respond to the requests may result in this cause
being dismissed.” Conifer’s App. Vol. II p. 36. Conifer and the City renewed
their motions to dismiss after the Quinns failed to comply with the trial court’s
April 10, 2018 order. The trial court granted the renewed motions without
holding a new hearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 12 of 19
[20] The Quinns effectively argue that the trial court was required to hold a new
hearing before granting the renewed motions to dismiss.2 We cannot agree
given that the Quinns were given ample opportunity to provide an explanation
of their failure to comply with the court orders requiring them to respond to the
discovery requests. The Quinns’ counsel provided an explanation that seemed
to have persuaded the trial court during the April 4, 2018 hearing, resulting in
denial of Conifer’s and the City’s original motions and the trial court awarding
the Quinns additional time to respond to the discovery requests. The Quinns
did not, at any time after the April 10, 2018 order, indicate to the trial court that
they would not be able to comply with the court’s order within the time
provided by the court or request additional time to do so. The Quinns’ failure
to comply with the trial court’s order came after being made aware that
noncompliance could result in the dismissal of their case.
[21] Trial Rule 41(E) provides that “[d]ismissal may be withheld … subject to the
condition that the plaintiff comply with these rules and diligently prosecute the
action[.]” The trial court’s April 10, 2018 order effectively withheld dismissal
subject to the condition that the Quinns respond to the discovery requests
within thirty days. Nothing in Trial Rule 41(E) indicates that the trial court is
2
In arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing on the motions to dismiss,
the Quinns failed to mention in their appellate brief that the trial court held a hearing on the original motions
on April 4, 2018, leaving the reader with the inaccurate impression that the trial court had failed to hold any
hearings on the issues raised in the renewed motions to dismiss. We take this opportunity to remind the
Quinns’ counsel of his duty of candor to the court and the importance of including accurate representations
of the record in appellate filings.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 13 of 19
required to hold another hearing prior to dismissing the action if the court’s
condition is not met. We believe that the April 4, 2018 hearing satisfied the
requirement for a hearing.
[22] Further, we acknowledge that under some circumstances, failure to hold a
hearing does not constitute reversible error. See Pfaffenberger, 785 N.E.2d at
1187; see also generally Caruthers v. State, 58 N.E.3d 207, 214 n.7 (Ind. Ct. App.
2016) (recognizing that there may be circumstances where the trial court’s
dismissal of an action without satisfying Trial Rule 41(E)’s hearing requirement
will not constitute reversible error). The Quinns also failed to demonstrate that
they were prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on the
renewed motions to dismiss during a September 13, 2018 hearing on their
motion to correct error. The Quinns failed to explain what new information
they would have presented during a hearing on the renewed motions to dismiss
or why they failed adequately respond to the discovery requests by the trial
court’s thirty-day deadline. Considering the record as a whole, we conclude
that even if the better practice would have been for the trial court to hold a
second hearing, the circumstances of this case are such that the trial court’s
failure to do so did not constitute reversible error. The trial court, therefore, did
not abuse its discretion by granting Conifer’s and the City’s renewed motions to
dismiss without holding a second hearing.
[23] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Crone, J., concurs.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 14 of 19
Tavitas, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 15 of 19
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael J. Quinn and Caroline [Add Hand-down date]
Quinn, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellants-Plaintiffs, 18A-PL-2504
Appeal from the Howard Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Brant J. Perry,
Conifer Insurance Company and Judge
City of Kokomo,
Appellees-Defendants. Trial Court Cause No.
34D02-1707-PL-567
Tavitas, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[1] I concur with the majority’s discussion of the motions to compel discovery. I
disagree, however, with the majority’s discussion of the motions to dismiss.
[2] I acknowledge the trial court’s and Defendants’ frustration with the Quinns’
failure to comply with the discovery rules. Indiana Trial Rule 41(E), however,
requires the trial court to hold a hearing prior to dismissing a case for failure to
prosecute or comply with the rules. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly
emphasized the need for such hearings. See, e.g., Rumfelt v. Himes, 438 N.E.2d
980, 983-84 (remanding for a hearing on the Trial Rule 41(E) motion); Wright v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 16 of 19
Miller, 989 N.E.2d 324, 328 n.3 (Ind. 2013) (“[W]e believe that the hearing
required by Trial Rule 41(E) should henceforth likewise be held when a case
dismissal is sought or contemplated under Trial Rule 37.”). Even though the
trial court here held a hearing regarding Defendants’ first motions to dismiss,
the trial court failed to hold a hearing regarding Defendants’ second motions to
dismiss.3
[3] The majority concludes that a hearing was not required because the trial court
“effectively withheld dismissal” when it denied the first motions to dismiss.
Indiana Trial Rule 41(E) provides: “Dismissal may be withheld or
reinstatement of dismissal may be made subject to the condition that the
plaintiff comply with these rules and diligently prosecute the action and upon
such terms that the court in its discretion determines to be necessary to assure
such diligent prosecution.” The trial court’s order on the first motions to
dismiss, however, did not purport to “withhold” dismissal; rather, the order
provides:
1. The Defendants have moved to dismiss this action as a result
of the Plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery in this matter.
2. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
3
In fact, one of the Defendants, the City, requested a hearing in its second motion to dismiss. Neither of
Defendants’ motions were verified.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 17 of 19
3. The Plaintiff is ordered to respond to all discovery requests
from the Defendants within 30 days. Failure to respond to the
requests may result in this cause being dismissed.
Appellee’s App. Vol. II p. 36.
[4] The trial court did not withhold judgment or take the matter under advisement.
The trial court simply denied Defendants’ first motions to dismiss and ordered
the Quinns to respond to discovery requests. The trial court noted that the
cause “may” be dismissed if the Quinns failed to respond, not that the cause
“would” be dismissed. The Defendants then characterized their second
motions to dismiss as “renewed” motions. The rules, however, do not provide
for “renewed” motions to dismiss, and I believe it is inappropriate to
characterize the motions in this way. Under these circumstances, I conclude
that a hearing was required on the second motions to dismiss.
[5] Finally, the majority holds that the Quinns were not prejudiced by the failure to
hold a hearing. In Rumfelt, 438 N.E.2d at 983-84, our Supreme Court held that
prejudice was presumed by the failure to hold such a hearing. The Rumfelt
court relied on Otte v. Tessman, 426 N.E.2d 660, 662 (Ind. 1981), which held:
If the failure to obey the clear explicit dictates of the Indiana
Rules of Procedure can be simply dismissed as harmless error,
then, the erosion of an orderly judicial system has begun. If the
clear, explicit meaning of the Indiana Rules of Procedure can be
re-written by judicial opinion to avoid the consequence of a
violation, then, the shroud of confusion will prevent any
meaningful, just and predictable solution to those disputes which
must be resolved in our courts.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 18 of 19
Otte, 426 N.E.2d at 662 (quoting Judge Staton’s dissent in Otte v. Tessman, 412
N.E.2d 1223, 1232 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)). Based on our Supreme Court’s
holdings in Rumfelt and Otte, I conclude that the failure to hold a hearing was
not harmless error. I would reverse and remand for a hearing on Defendants’
second motions to dismiss.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2504 | June 6, 2019 Page 19 of 19