Brazier v. Maple Lane Apartments I, LLC

• Decision Date: 22 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. 71A04–1406–CC–278.,71A04–1406–CC–278.
• Citation: 45 N.E.3d 442
• Parties: Eric BRAZIER d/b/a Brazier Painting, Appellant–Plaintiff, v. MAPLE LANE APARTMENTS I, LLC, Appellee–Defendant.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

45 N.E.3d 442

Eric BRAZIER d/b/a Brazier Painting, Appellant–Plaintiff

v.MAPLE LANE APARTMENTS I, LLC, Appellee–Defendant.

No. 71A04–1406–CC–278.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Oct. 22, 2015.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 2016.

Kristin R. Fox, Fox Law Firm, Mishawaka, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Lily M. Schaefer, Chad W. Nally, Genetos Retson & Yoon LLP, Merrillville, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

ROBB, Judge.

Case Summary and Issues

[1] Eric Brazier sued Maple Lane Apartments I, LLC (“Maple Lane”), claiming he had performed over $60,000 in painting services at Maple Lane's request for which he had not been paid. Following a five-day bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Maple Lane and imposed sanctions against Brazier's counsel in the amount of $5,000 toward Maple Lane's attorney fees. Brazier now appeals, raising several issues for our review, which we have restated as: 1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment; 2) whether the trial court erred in its evidentiary ruling on certain exhibits proffered by Brazier; 3) whether the trial court's judgment is clearly erroneous; and 4) whether the trial court erred in imposing sanctions. Concluding there was no error in any respect, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Maple Lane consists of 396 apartments in 100 buildings and a clubhouse in South Bend, Indiana. Sometime prior to 2006, Maple Lane hired Brazier to do interior painting work at the complex on an as-needed basis. Sue Papaj, who became Maple Lane's property manager in 2006, was Brazier's primary contact. She would apprise Brazier of vacant apartments, and he would paint the interior for approximately $160 per apartment. In addition, Papaj occasionally sought permission from her boss for Brazier to perform “extra work,” which included such things as cleaning gutters, painting common areas, and exterior painting. Transcript at 58. In 2009, Brazier was asked to repair and paint the wood around two bay windows on the clubhouse and to paint the picture windows, the common door frame, and the apartment numbers on seven buildings on Norway Maple Court. He was then asked to paint the exterior windows on a few other buildings that were in bad condition (collectively, the “Clubhouse Project”).

[3] Typically, Brazier would handwrite invoices for the work he did and submit them to Papaj within two weeks of completing the work. The date on the invoice would reflect the date he turned the invoice in rather than the date he did the work. Brazier did not keep copies of the invoices he submitted to Maple Lane. Papaj reviewed the invoices, initialed them to indicate payment should be made, and sent them to Maple Lane's corporate office in Chicago for payment. Checks were sent directly to Brazier.

[4] In early 2010, Maple Lane instructed Papaj to stop using Brazier's services. When Papaj called Brazier to let him know that his services would no longer be required, she told him to finish up what he was doing and bring her any unpaid invoices. Brazier delivered a few invoices to Papaj which she initialed and sent to Maple Lane. Papaj believed Brazier had submitted, and she had initialed, invoices totaling approximately $3,200 that Maple Lane ultimately did not pay. At the end of March or beginning of April, Brazier brought approximately 100 invoices to Papaj for exterior work he claimed to have done on every building in the complex, charging between $525 and $550 for each building (the “Bay Window Project”). He indicated he started this project in 2008 or 2009; Papaj claimed Brazier was never asked to, and in fact did not do, this work. Papaj did not initial the invoices, but she did send them on to Maple Lane.

[5] On May 12, 2011, Brazier filed a Verified Complaint on Account against Maple Lane, seeking payment of $63,995. Attached to the complaint was a summary of Brazier's invoices to Maple Lane from December 2008 to April 2010, showing the invoice number, amount, and whether it had been paid. Also attached to the complaint were 114 allegedly unpaid invoices dated from June 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010, including ninety-nine invoices all dated April 30, 2010, for the Bay Window Project. Appellant's Appendix at 36–61. Maple Lane filed its answer on July 13, 2011.

[6] Brazier filed a motion for partial summary judgment contending, in part, Maple Lane's answer was a judicial admission that the invoices for the Bay Window Project were due and owing. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion:

[Brazier] too narrowly construes [Maple Lane's] Answer as an acknowledgement by [Maple Lane]—a judicial admission as is claimed by [Brazier]—that [Brazier's] invoices are accurate and that the work described in each invoice was actually performed. [Brazier] takes an inartfully drafted answer and construes it too readily as an admission....

* * *

Beyond that fact, [Brazier] has failed to show the absence of a genuine issue of fact. It appears clear that many of the numerous invoices, including what would appear to be most if not all of the invoices dated April 30, 2010, appear to be the same invoice, reproduced over 100 times, differing only by the apartment building or unit at which services were alleged to have been provided. There are numerous inferences that may be drawn from this evidence, including inferences that would stand to defeat [Brazier's] claim. Thus, [Maple Lane] is not obligated to come forth with evidence to defeat [Brazier's] Motion. Nonetheless, the evidence designated by [Maple Lane] is sufficient to raise a question of fact concerning [Brazier's] billing.

Id. at 9–10.

[7] During the discovery process, Maple Lane filed a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions against Brazier. The trial court did not rule on the motion before trial. Throughout the litigation, Brazier and his counsel referred to the invoices attached to the complaint as “copies” of the invoices he had submitted to Papaj and Maple Lane. It was determined for the first time at trial, however, that the “copies” were actually created by Brazier for the purpose of litigation after consulting with counsel. Maple Lane renewed and supplemented its motion for sanctions during trial.

[8] At the request of the parties, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions thereon after the conclusion of the trial. In large part, the trial court's findings came down to a credibility call, as the trial court noted the main witnesses—Brazier and Papaj—gave testimony that was “often and grossly wholly contradictory and irreconcilable. Effectively, each was testifying that the other was lying.” Id. at 16. Ultimately, the trial court determined there were numerous issues with respect to Brazier's credibility—including his “poorly organized and almost wholly idiosyncratic” recordkeeping, id. at 13, his poor memory of events, and irregularities with regard to the timing and amount of the Bay Window Project invoices—and further determined “Papaj was a credible witness.” Id. at 16. The trial court concluded “Brazier has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he was authorized to perform or that he even did perform the Bay Window Project. The Court concludes that this work was not authorized (beyond the Clubhouse Project) and was not performed.” Id. at 20. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment for Maple Lane and against Brazier on Brazier's complaint. The trial court also determined that sanctions against Brazier and/or his counsel were appropriate, but held an order on such sanctions under advisement until Maple Lane had an opportunity to submit an affidavit of attorney fees and an “explanation of the sanctions it believes the Court should consider.” Id. at 22.

[9] Following the entry of judgment against him, Brazier filed a motion to reconsider and motion to correct error. Pursuant to the court's order, Maple Lane filed an explanation of the sanctions it deemed appropriate, seeking attorney fees incurred from the time of Brazier's motion for summary judgment through trial and additional sanctions against Brazier's counsel for violations of Trial Rule 11(A). In a single order, the trial court denied Brazier's motion to reconsider and motion to correct error and imposed a sanction against Brazier's counsel of $5,000, “which amount will alleviate only a modest amount of the expense incurred by [Maple Lane] as a result of the conduct and lack of candor of [Brazier's] counsel.” Id. at 26. Brazier now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Brief of Appellant

[10] At the outset, we must note several significant deficiencies in the “Corrected” Brief Brazier filed with this court.¹ Brazier initially filed his brief on December 19, 2014. The brief contained a one-page Table of Contents—showing three headings under the Argument section all beginning on page 18—and a four-page Table of Authorities. On December 31, 2014, Brazier filed a Motion to File Corrected Brief to Correct Table of Contents and Table of Authorities. In the motion, counsel alleged she had been unable to complete the brief even after two extensions of time “due to the length of time to review and cite to the voluminous transcript, exhibits, and post-trial filings of the numerous and complex issues on appeal,” but had nonetheless filed a brief by the date ordered. She noted the Table of Contents and Table of Authorities in the brief “provide citations to incorrect page numbers and the correct authorities are not listed in alphabetical order.” Therefore, she requested leave to file “a corrected Appellant's Brief limited to the Table of Contents and Table of Authorities in order to provide the correct page numbers and correct authorities in alphabetical order. Brazier will make no changes to other parts of the Brief.” (Emphasis added.) This court granted Brazier's motion, directing him to file an Amended Appellant's Brief “in order to correct the Table of Contents and Table of Authorities.... No substantive changes shall be made to the Amended Appella...