Hurst v. Hurst, Court of Appeals Case No. 45A03-1612-GU-2790.
| Decision Date | 10 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 45A03-1612-GU-2790. |
| Citation | 84 N.E.3d 1222 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the GUARDIANSHIP OF Nathaniel C. HURST, A Minor, Centier Bank and Centier Bank, Personal Representative of the Estate of Luanne Hurst, Appellant-Defendant, v. Nathaniel C. Hurst, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Alissa Kohlhoff, Kohlhoff Law P.C., Valparaiso, Indiana.
Attorney for Appellee: Rebecca L. Billick, Billick Mediation & Family Law, Valparaiso, Indiana.
[1] Centier Bank ("Bank") appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment in Nathaniel Hurst's action against it and Patrick and Michelle Hurst (the "Hursts"), wherein Nathaniel alleges he suffered damages as a result of fraudulent acts committed by the Bank during its administration of Nathaniel's mother's estate and by the Hursts during their guardianship of Nathaniel's estate. The Bank raises two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred in denying the Bank's motion for summary judgment. Concluding the trial court did not err, we affirm.
[2] In 2004, Luanne Hurst ("Mother"); her eight-year-old son, Nathaniel; and her boyfriend, Robert Suarez, lived in Mother's house in Lake County, Indiana. In March 2004, Mother passed away, leaving Nathaniel as her sole heir. Thereafter, Suarez was appointed personal representative of Mother's estate and guardian of Nathaniel's person; the Hursts, as Nathaniel's aunt and uncle, were appointed guardians of Nathaniel's estate.
[3] In March 2005, the Hursts filed an accounting showing the value of Nathaniel's estate was approximately $72,000.00. In November 2005, the Hursts moved the trial court to remove Suarez as personal representative of Mother's estate and to appoint the Bank, which the trial court granted. Thereafter, the Hursts and the Bank were represented by the same attorney and the administration of Mother's estate was unsupervised. In March 2006, the Bank evicted Suarez, and in turn, Nathaniel from Mother's house. The Bank filed an accompanying affidavit swearing the estimated value of Mother's real estate at the time was $94,000.00. In November 2008, the Bank moved to close Mother's estate and filed a closing statement evidencing the liquidation of Mother's assets and payments made by the Bank on behalf of Mother. The closing statement details the Bank, in its capacity as personal representative, disbursed to itself approximately $57,000.00 of Mother's assets; approximately $7,000.00 to Patrick Hurst, individually; and approximately $1,750.00 to the Hursts as guardians of Nathaniel's estate. A copy of the closing statement was sent to the Hursts, who did not object. On April 29, 2009, the trial court ordered Mother's estate closed.
[4] On September 12, 2013, Nathaniel turned eighteen years old. On July 15, 2014, the Hursts filed a final report and accounting of Nathaniel's estate and petitioned the trial court to terminate their guardianship over the estate. The final accounting listed Nathaniel's assets at approximately $3,000.00. Nathaniel filed an objection. Discovery ensued and on July 28, 2015, Nathaniel moved to join the Bank after learning the Bank may have "committed acts of negligence, fraud, inadequate disclosure, or misrepresentation." Brief of the Appellee at 13. Nathaniel also served the Bank with a summons. The trial court granted Nathaniel's motion and the Bank was joined as a party to the guardianship matter on August 6, 2015.
[5] A week later, the Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to File within Statute of Limitations, arguing Nathaniel's claims were barred by Indiana Code section 29-1-7.5-6's three-month statute of limitations or Indiana Code section 29-1-1-21's one-year statute of limitations and therefore Nathaniel's motion for joinder should be dismissed. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the Bank's motion without addressing the Bank's statute of limitations claims, reasoning the Bank was an indispensable party pursuant to Trial Rule 19. The Bank then filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.
[6] On March 23, 2016, Nathaniel filed a complaint for damages under this same cause number against the Hursts and the Bank, alleging the Hursts and the Bank committed fraud resulting in Nathaniel's low inheritance. On July 21, 2016, the Bank filed a second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to File within Statute of Limitations, raising the same arguments noted above. The trial court denied the motion. The Bank then filed what it titled a motion to correct error. Before addressing the merits of the Bank's arguments, the trial court noted it had treated the Bank's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and explained its order denying the Bank summary judgment was not a final appealable order. Therefore, the trial court also explained it was considering the Bank's motion to correct error as a motion to reconsider.1 The trial court then denied the Bank's motion to reconsider. This appeal ensued.
[7] We must first consider the timeliness of this appeal. Indiana Appellate Rule 9 provides that parties may initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of an appealable order. Generally, the appealable order will be a final judgment. Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(1) ; In re D.J. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. , 68 N.E.3d 574, 578 (Ind. 2017). However, not all orders must be final to be appealable, as Appellate Rule 14 allows a party to pursue an appeal of an interlocutory order as either a matter of right or discretion. Here, the Bank's notice of appeal indicates it is appealing from a final judgment, despite the fact a ruling denying a motion for summary judgment is not final, a fact the trial court explicitly made clear when ruling on the Bank's motion to reconsider. In addition, it does not appear the trial court's order denying the Bank summary judgment touches on any of the enumerated interlocutory orders set out in Appellate Rule 14(A) that allow an interlocutory appeal as a matter of right. Therefore, the Bank's appeal is a discretionary interlocutory appeal, which requires the trial court to certify the order for appeal and this court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal. App. R. 14(B)(1). Our review of the record reveals the Bank did not request the trial court certify any of its orders for interlocutory appeal and therefore the Bank's appeal is untimely.2
[8] As our supreme court recently made clear, "the reviewing court is not deprived of jurisdiction if the notice of appeal is untimely—meaning belated or premature." D.J. , 68 N.E.3d at 578. In those circumstances, the appellate court may choose to exercise its discretion and address the merits of a forfeited appeal despite the procedural default. Id. at 578-59 ; In re O.R. , 16 N.E.3d 965, 971-72 (Ind. 2014). Every order, then, is in a sense appealable. Although Appellate Rule 14 and In re D.J. appear to be at odds, both are products of our supreme court, and we must assume the court was aware of the implications its decision in D.J. would have on Rule 14. Viewing the Appellate Rules through the lens of D.J. and O.R. , the procedural rules are not immutable; they are guidelines. See App. R. 1 (). The Rules impose a framework for how orders are to be appealed—by granting absolute rights with respect to some orders and discretionary rights with respect to others. But in either case, the rights can be forfeited, and they can be revived in our discretion.
[9] As we have noted, the Bank forfeited its right to pursue its discretionary appeal by prematurely filing its Notice of Appeal. We do not read D.J. to excuse parties in general from their duty to follow our procedural rules in pursuing an appeal and we do not condone the way these parties in particular have treated this appeal as if it was from a final judgment when it clearly was not. But a summary judgment ruling on a statute of limitations argument is a classic discretionary interlocutory appeal issue and it is clear both parties seek an early appellate resolution of this threshold issue—notably, Nathaniel did not raise the issue of timeliness to this court. Whether we dismiss this case due to a procedural default or decide the issue as we have herein, the case will go on. The benefit of deciding the case now is that the statute of limitations question will not cloud the balance of the litigation and risk wasting the resources of the parties and the trial court. We therefore opt to exercise our discretion in this case and decide the merits of the statute of limitations arguments made by the parties to provide clarity and certainty to the parties going forward.
[10] When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our standard of review is the same as that of the trial court. Considering only those facts that the parties designated to the trial court, we must determine whether there is a "genuine issue as to any material fact" and whether "the moving party is entitled to a judgment [as] a matter of law." In answering these questions, the reviewing court construes all factual inferences in the non-moving party's favor and resolves all doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the moving party. The moving party bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and once the movant satisfies the burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to designate and produce evidence of facts showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
In re Estate of Kalwitz , 923 N.E.2d 982, 984-85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citation omitted), trans. denied .
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Carrico
...was granted, that Court of Appeals opinion was vacated. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). It also cites Matter of Guardianship of Hurst v. Hurst, 84 N.E.3d 1222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), opinion vacated on reh'g, 93 N.E.3d 790 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018, withdrawn from bound volume (Feb. 2, 2018). Theref......
-
Centier Bank v. Hurst (In re Hurst), Court of Appeals Case No. 45A03–1612–GU–2790
...: Rebecca L. Billick, Billick Mediation & Family Law, Valparaiso, IndianaOPINION ON REHEARING Robb, Judge.[1] In Guardianship of Hurst , 84 N.E.3d 1222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), Centier Bank (the "Bank") appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment despite the fact the order it appeal......