Sanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane

• Decision Date: 28 July 2020
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CC-675
• Citation: 153 N.E.3d 262
• Parties: SANDERS KENNELS, INC., Appellant/Defendant/ Counter-Plaintiff, v. Gary LANE, Appellee/Plaintiff/ Counter-Defendant.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

153 N.E.3d 262

SANDERS KENNELS, INC., Appellant/Defendant/ Counter-Plaintiff,

v.Gary LANE, Appellee/Plaintiff/ Counter-Defendant.

Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CC-675

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed July 28, 2020

Attorney for Appellant: Andrea L. Ciobanu, Ciobanu Law, P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorney for Appellee: Adam Lenkowsky, Roberts Litigation Group, Indianapolis, Indiana

Bradford, Chief Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Around 2013, Gary Lane contacted Sanders Kennels, Inc., a Georgia corporation, about purchasing Presa Canario dogs for breeding. Lane and Sanders Kennels eventually entered into a verbal contract, pursuant to which Lane agreed that he would sell any dogs received from Sanders Kennels under its name but that he could sell any puppies under his. Sanders Kennels agreed that it would provide a measure of lifetime care for the dogs and their offspring and would refer any potential customers from Indiana to Lane. From 2014 to 2016, Lane purchased, agreed to purchase, or received several Presa Canarios from Sanders Kennels, none of which were suitable for professional breeding.

[2] In October of 2016, Lane sued Sanders Kennels for breach of contract, fraud, theft, and conversion. In January of 2017, Sanders Kennels moved to dismiss Lane's complaint on the basis that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over it, which motion the trial court denied. In June of 2017, Sanders Kennels filed a counterclaim for defamation based on social media posts Lane had made that were critical of Sanders Kennels. In January of 2018, Sanders Kennels' counsel withdrew. In June of 2019, Lane issued his requests for admissions to Sanders Kennels, which the trial court deemed admitted when Sanders Kennels failed to respond. In November of 2019, Lane moved for summary judgment on his claims and Sanders Kennels' counterclaim, to which Sanders Kennels also failed to respond. In February of 2020, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Lane and awarded damages. In March of 2020, Sanders Kennels moved for relief from judgment and/or to correct error, which motions the trial court denied.

[3] Sanders Kennels contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion for relief from judgment because it was never served with several filings and orders. Sanders Kennels also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion to correct error because it lacked personal jurisdiction over Sanders Kennels and because it erroneously entered summary judgment in favor of Lane. Finding no merit in Sanders Kennels' arguments, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[4] Lane is a dog breeder in Indianapolis, and Sanders Kennels is a dog breeding business operated by Noah Sanders in Dawsonville, Georgia. Around 2013, after seeing a Sanders Kennels advertisement in Dog Fancy magazine in 2009, Lane contacted Sanders Kennels about purchasing Presa Canario dames and sires for breeding. Sanders Kennels represented to Lane that it would provide him healthy, breed-quality, pure-bred Presa Canarios, as well as supporting ancestry documentation. Lane and Sanders Kennels entered into an informal, unwritten business arrangement, pursuant to which Lane would purchase Presa Canarios and breed them, sell the dogs purchased from Sanders Kennels under the Sanders Kennels name, and would sell any offspring under his name. In return, Sanders Kennels agreed to provide lifetime support for the Presa Canarios they provided to Lane and their offspring, which consisted of consultation regarding the sale, care, and treatment of the dogs. Finally, Sanders Kennels agreed to refer potential Indiana customers to Lane.

[5] Between November of 2014 and March of 2016, Lane purchased, agreed to purchase, or received several Presa Canarios from Sanders Kennels, all of which were unsuitable for professional breeding due to health problems, undocumented ancestry, overbreeding, or some combination of the above. Beginning in or around March of 2016, Lane made several postings on various social media that were critical of Sanders Kennels.

[6] On October 24, 2016, Lane sued Sanders Kennels, alleging breach of contract, fraud, theft, and conversion. The summons issued to the Indiana Secretary of State identified Sanders Kennels' address as 1301 Elliot Family Parkway, Dawsonville, Georgia, 30534 ("the Mailing Address"). On January 5, 2017, Sanders Kennels moved to dismiss Lane's complaint on the basis that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. On January 25, 2017, Lane responded to Sanders Kennels' motion to dismiss and attached a sworn affidavit from Lane detailing the informal business relationship he had with Sanders Kennels. On May 19, 2017, the trial court denied Sanders Kennels' motion to dismiss. On June 16, 2017, Sanders Kennels filed a counterclaim alleging defamation. On January 22, 2018, counsel for Sanders Kennels moved for leave to withdraw, which leave the trial court granted the next day. Counsel did not appear for Sanders Kennels again until March of 2020.

[7] Meanwhile, on June 7, 2019, Lane served his requests for admissions on Sanders Kennels, and the certificate of service indicated that requests were mailed to Sanders Kennels at the Mailing Address. Sanders Kennels did not respond to the requests for admissions. On July 17, 2019, Lane moved to deem his requests for admissions from Sanders Kennels admitted, which motion indicated that it was mailed to Sanders Kennels at the Mailing Address. The trial court's August 7, 2019, order deeming the requests for admissions admitted listed Sanders Kennels' address as the Mailing Address, and the chronological case summary ("CCS") indicates that "Automated Paper Notice" was issued to the parties. Appellee's App. Vol. II p. 8.

[8] On November 14, 2019, Lane moved for summary judgment, and the certificate of service indicated that the motion was mailed to Sanders Kennels at the Mailing Address. On December 17, 2019, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Lane. The trial court's order indicates that a copy was sent to the Mailing Address, and the CCS shows an "Automated Paper Notice" being sent to Sanders Kennels. Appellee's App. Vol. II p. 8. On January 14, 2020, Lane moved to continue the damages hearing, which motion indicated that it was mailed to the Mailing Address, and when the trial court granted Lane's motion the next day, its order included Sanders Kennels' address, and the CCS shows that "Automated Paper Notice" was given. Appellee's App. Vol. II pp. 8–9. On February 12, 2020, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of Lane in the amount of $277,312.60. The trial court's order on final judgment included Sanders Kennels' address as the Mailing Address, and the CCS shows an "Automated Paper Notice" being sent to Sanders Kennels. Appellee's App. Vol. II p. 8.

[9] On March 10, 2020, Sanders Kennels, represented by counsel again, moved to correct error and/or for relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rules 59 and 60. On March 11, 2020, the trial court denied Sanders Kennels' motion to correct error and for relief from judgment.

Discussion and Decision

I. Motion for Relief from Judgment

[10] Sanders Kennels contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion for relief from judgment. Trial Rule 60(B) provides, in part, that "[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a judgment, including a judgment by default[.]"

Our scope of review for the grant or denial of a T.R. 60(B) motion is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's judgment is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and inferences supporting the judgment for relief.

McIntyre v. Baker , 703 N.E.2d 172, 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (citations omitted).

[11] Pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B)(1), a party may obtain relief from judgment for "mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect":

Under subsection (B)(1), a trial court may relieve a party from a default judgment for "mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect" if the party files a motion within one year of the judgment and alleges a meritorious claim or defense. Addressed to the trial court's equitable discretion, "[a] Trial Rule 60(B)(1) motion does not attack the substantive, legal merits of a judgment, but rather addresses the procedural, equitable grounds justifying the relief from the finality of a judgment." [ Kmart Corp. v. Englebright , 719 N.E.2d 1249, 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (citation omitted), trans. denied ]. Because "[t]here is no general rule as to what constitutes excusable neglect under Trial Rule 60(B)(1)," "[e]ach case must be determined on its particular facts." Id. (citations omitted).

Huntington Nat. Bank v. Car-X Assoc. Corp. , 39 N.E.3d 652, 655 (Ind. 2015). A movant filing pursuant to subsection 60(B)(1) must also allege a meritorious claim or defense. T.R. 60(B).

[12] Sanders Kennels contends that its neglect to respond to Lane's requests for admissions, summary judgment motion, the trial court's order setting a damages hearing, and the trial court's order continuing the damages hearing was excusable because it did not have notice of any of those documents. Sanders Kennels claims the record indicates that only electronic service of these documents was attempted, service that would have failed because Sanders Kennels had no email address registered with the Indiana Case Management System at the time.

[13] While Sanders Kennels' claim would likely be compelling if true, the notion that Lane only attempted electronic service is fatally undercut by the record. Sanders Kennels does not dispute that the Mailing Address is correct, and it was to this address that Lane's complaint was first sent, which Sanders Kennels obviously received, because it retained counsel and responded to it. Regarding the orders at issue, the record clearly indicates that "Aut...