Tricia Dennis v. R&M Construction, Inc. and the Lakes of the Four Seasons Property Owners Association, Inc. (mem. dec.) , 111 N.E.3d 260 ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Sep 14 2018, 9:19 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Daniel W. Sherman LAKES OF THE FOUR SEASONS
Valparaiso, Indiana PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
Brian E. Less
Law Office of Brian E. Less, PC
St. John, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tricia Dennis, September 14, 2018
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CT-425
v. Appeal from the Porter Superior
Court
R&M Construction, Inc. and the The Honorable Roger V. Bradford,
Lakes of the Four Seasons Judge
Property Owners Association, Trial Court Cause No.
Inc.,1 64D01-1408-CT-7036
Appellees-Defendants.
1
While counsel for R&M Construction, Inc. filed an appearance, he did not file an appellate brief or
otherwise participate in this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-425 | September 14, 2018 Page 1 of 7
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Tricia Dennis owns a home in the Lakes of the Four Seasons subdivision.
Dennis claims to have experienced drainage issues after R&M Construction
(“R&M”) started construction on the lot adjacent to Dennis’s property. Dennis
filed suit against R&M, the Lakes of the Four Seasons Property Owners
Association, Inc. (the “Association”), and a number of other parties. 2 The
Association was dismissed from the lawsuit after the trial court found that it did
not owe a duty to Dennis. On April 12, 2016, Dennis requested permission to
file a second amended complaint in which she sought to amend her claims
against the Association and bring the Association back into the lawsuit. The
Association objected, arguing that it would suffer undue prejudice if Dennis
were granted the requested relief. Following a hearing, the trial court denied
Dennis’s request. Dennis argues on appeal that the trial court abused its
discretion in doing so. Concluding otherwise, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 13, 2014, Dennis filed suit against the Association asserting
negligence and breach of contract claims. The Association filed a motion to
2
The other parties have been dismissed from the lawsuit.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-425 | September 14, 2018 Page 2 of 7
dismiss on August 27, 2014, arguing that (1) it did not owe Dennis a duty and
(2) Dennis failed to include the restrictive covenants relied on in her breach of
contract claim. Dennis responded on September 2, 2014, by filing her first
amended complaint to which she attached an unverified copy of the restrictive
covenants. The Association renewed its motion to dismiss on September 19,
2014.
[3] On October 27, 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on the Association’s
motion. At the conclusion of this hearing, the trial court dismissed the claims
levied against the Association, stating the following:
The Court has not found any place in the portions of the
covenants that have been submitted where there’s any obligation
on the part of the [Association] to enforce those covenants; they
have the power, they may, there’s no absolute duty and there’s
no duty under contract, there’s no duty on negligence. So I’ll
grant the motion to dismiss and the Defendant, [the Association],
will be dismissed from this case.
Tr. p. 12. Dennis’s motion to correct error was denied on December 16, 2015.
She did not appeal either the dismissal of her claims against the Association or
the denial of her motion to correct error.
[4] On April 12, 2016, Dennis filed a motion requesting permission to file a second
amended complaint. Specifically, she sought to amend her claims against the
Association and to bring the Association back into the lawsuit. Dennis relied
on two pieces of allegedly newly-discovered evidence in support. The first piece
included instructions given by the Association to the contractors building new
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-425 | September 14, 2018 Page 3 of 7
homes on property falling inside the Association’s physical parameters. The
instruction highlighted by Dennis reads as follows:
Existing topography of the building lot is to be maintained as
nearly as possible. Finished ground elevation of the sides and
rear of the lot must meet the level of the adjacent lots not less
than two (2) feet within the lot boundaries. The Building Control
Committee shall not approve any plans, which adversely affect
the drainage form said lot to the adjacent land.
Appellant’s App. Vol. IV, p. 21. The second piece included a statement
attributed to one of the Association’s directors during an October 7, 2013
executive meeting of the Association indicating that the building plan for the
home built adjacent to her home should not have been permitted through
building control. Dennis asserted that these pieces of evidence bolstered her
claim that the Association owed her a duty.
[5] For reasons unclear in the record, the trial court did not conduct a hearing or
rule on Dennis’s motion. On July 18, 2017, Dennis asked the trial court to set a
hearing on her April 12, 2016 motion. The Association filed an objection to
Dennis’s April 12, 2016 motion on August 1, 2017. The trial court conducted a
hearing on December 7, 2017, after which it denied Dennis’s request for
permission to file a second amended complaint.
Discussion and Decision
[6] At the outset, we note that to the extent that Dennis’s appellate arguments can
be interpreted as a challenge to the propriety of the trial court’s October 27,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-425 | September 14, 2018 Page 4 of 7
2015 dismissal of the Association from the underlying action, such a challenge
is untimely. We will therefore limit our review to whether the trial court
abused its discretion in denying Dennis’s request for permission to file a second
amended complaint.
[7] Dennis contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her April
12, 2016 motion. Trial Rule 15(A) allows a party to amend her pleading one
time as a matter of course if the request is filed within a certain time frame.
After that, a party may amend her pleading “only by leave of court or by
written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be given when justice so
requires.” Ind. R. Trial P. 15(A).
Although amendments to pleadings are to be liberally allowed,
the trial court retains broad discretion in granting or denying
amendments to pleadings. We will reverse only upon a showing
of an abuse of that discretion. An abuse of discretion may occur
if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of
the facts and circumstances before the court, or if the court has
misinterpreted the law. We consider whether a trial court’s
ruling on a motion to amend is an abuse of discretion by
evaluating a number of factors, including undue delay, bad faith,
or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to
cure deficiency by amendment previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the amendment, and
futility of the amendment.
Hilliard v. Jacobs, 927 N.E.2d 393, 398 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (internal citations
and quotation omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-425 | September 14, 2018 Page 5 of 7
[8] Dennis did not change her theory of recovery or add an additional theory of
recovery in the proffered second amended complaint. She merely argues that
allegedly newly-discovered evidence, i.e., the building instructions and the
statement during the October 7, 2013 executive meeting, bolsters her claim that
the Association owed her a duty.
[9] It has long been “a familiar rule of practice, as applicable to all classes of cases,
that a new trial will never be granted on account of newly-discovered evidence
where, by the use of reasonable diligence, the newly-discovered evidence might
have been obtained and used at the trial sought to be vacated.” Allen v. Bond,
112 Ind. 523, 530, 14 N.E. 492, 495 (1887). As far as the Association is
concerned, the proceedings were over and the matter had been resolved.
Bringing it back into the case would, in effect, subject it to a new trial on the
question of duty. As such, pursuant to the rationale of Indiana Supreme
Court’s decision in Allen, it would be inappropriate to bring the Association
back into the lawsuit if the allegedly newly-discovered evidence could have
been discovered by the use of reasonable diligence by Dennis before the
Association was dismissed from the lawsuit.
[10] Dennis presents no argument that either piece of allegedly newly-discovered
evidence could not have been discovered or was not available to her prior to
initiation of the lawsuit. She does not dispute the Association’s assertion that
both the building instructions and the minutes from the executive meeting were
available to members of the Association upon request well before the August
13, 2014 filing date. We conclude that Dennis failed to exercise reasonable
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-425 | September 14, 2018 Page 6 of 7
diligence by not requesting all relevant documents from the Association before
initiating the underlying lawsuit. Given that both the building instructions and
the minutes of the October 7, 2013 executive meeting were available to and
could have been discovered by Dennis prior to initiation of the underlying
lawsuit, neither qualifies as newly-discovered evidence sufficient to re-open the
case against the Association. It would therefore be inappropriate and unduly
prejudicial to allow Dennis another bite at the proverbial apple to prove duty.
[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-425 | September 14, 2018 Page 7 of 7