Sollers Point Co. v. Zeller

• Decision Date: 23 March 2020
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CC-1156
• Citation: 145 N.E.3d 790
• Parties: SOLLERS POINT COMPANY, Sollers Point Limited Partnership, and Shapiro Family, LLC, Appellants-Defendants, v. L.M. ZELLER and Zeller Elevator Company, Appellees-Plaintiffs.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

145 N.E.3d 790

SOLLERS POINT COMPANY, Sollers Point Limited Partnership, and Shapiro Family, LLC, Appellants-Defendants,

v.L.M. ZELLER and Zeller Elevator Company, Appellees-Plaintiffs.

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CC-1156

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED March 23, 2020

Attorneys for Appellants: Clifford R. Whitehead, L. Katherine Boren, Ziemer, Stayman, Weitzel & Shoulders, LLP, Evansville, Indiana

Attorney for Appellees: Douglas K. Briody, Evansville, Indiana

Mathias, Judge.

[1] L.M. Zeller and Zeller Elevator Company (collectively "Zeller") filed a complaint in Vanderburgh Superior Court against Sollers Point Company, Sollers Point Limited Partnership, and Shapiro Family LLC (collectively "Sollers Point"),¹ seeking to recover approximately $45,000 for elevator repair services Zeller had performed at a commercial building owned by Sollers Point in Evansville, Indiana. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Zeller in the amount of $26,729, plus pre-judgment interest, but found that the remaining money sought by Zeller was barred by the statute of limitations. Sollers Point filed a notice of appeal from this judgment, and Zeller filed a motion to correct error in the trial court claiming that the trial court had improperly excluded certain charges from its award of damages. After the trial court clerk filed its Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record in this court, the trial court issued an order purporting to grant Zeller's motion to correct error. In this appeal, Sollers Point presents three issues for our review, which we restate as:

I. Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Zeller's motion to correct error;

II. Whether Zeller's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and

III. Whether the trial court erred by awarding pre-judgment interest.

[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] This case involves a dispute over billing for elevator services Zeller performed at a commercial building ("the Building") owned by Sollers Point on Main Street in Evansville, Indiana. The Building was constructed in the late 1960s, and Zeller began to work on the elevators in the Building in 1969 as a subcontractor. In 1972, the company that then owned the Building, Transamerica Investment Group, hired Zeller directly to work on the elevators in the Building. And, in early 1973, Transamerica entered into a maintenance agreement with Zeller, under which Zeller agreed to provide regular maintenance and inspection of the elevators for $875 per month.

[4] In 1974, Sollers Point purchased the building from Transamerica but did not assume the maintenance agreement with Zeller from Transamerica. Zeller nevertheless continued to perform regular maintenance on the elevators for the same rate as provided in its agreement with Transamerica. Through the years, Zeller notified Sollers Point in writing that it planned to raise its rates for its work and invoiced Sollers Point for its regular maintenance. Zeller also provided separate invoices for work that did not fall within the ambit of regular maintenance. Sollers Point also regularly asked Zeller to perform other maintenance and repairs to the Building, including servicing and replacing air conditioners, smoke detectors, cooling fans, and a boiler. For decades, Sollers Point paid Zeller's invoices without conflict.

[5] The basis for the present conflict started on January 24, 2009, when a water main near the Building broke, causing flooding in the basement and part of the elevator shafts. Sollers Point asked Zeller to inspect and repair any damage done to the elevator equipment. For several weeks, Zeller employees spent hours cleaning up and repairing damage caused by the flood. These efforts included removing water from the basement and elevator pits; cleaning and repairing elevator cars that had been submerged and damaged by water; disassembling, draining, cleaning, and lubricating various components of the elevator system; cleaning and lubricating the various wire ropes and cables used in the elevator system; pressure washing the walls of the elevator pits, the ladders, sills, doors, and bottoms of the elevator cars, all of which had been exposed to hydraulic fluid; cleaning all electrical switches; replacing all bearings; and various other tasks. Zeller also decided that the compensating cables for the elevators might rust as a result of the water damage and purchased new cables to replace the older ones.

[6] On February 13, 2009, Zeller submitted an estimate for the costs of the clean-up and repairs resulting from the flood. The total of the estimate was $58,691.49. The estimate also stated that the cost of the work performed to date was $44,996.44, and provided that the cost to install the new cables would be $16,360.² Sollers Point submitted this estimate to its insurance carrier, who paid Sollers point $58,691.49, the exact amount of the estimate. Zeller later determined that the cables did not need to be replaced and never installed the new cables.

[7] After the flood, Zeller continued to send Sollers Point regular invoices for routine maintenance, which Sollers Point continued to pay. The costs associated with the flood were not included in these regular invoices, which Zeller billed under a separate account ("the Flood Event Account"). Although Zeller provided an estimate shortly after the flood event, Zeller did not submit an invoice relating the costs of the flood clean-up and repair until December 21, 2011. This December 21 invoice ("the 2011 Invoice") demanded payment of $44,996.44, the same as the amount listed in the 2009 estimate for the work performed to date. Zeller later explained that, because replacement of the cables was later deemed unnecessary, it decided not to bill Sollers Point for any of the flood-related work that occurred after the 2009 estimate.³ Sollers Point never paid this invoice.⁴

[8] On July 10, 2015, over three and a half years after submitting the 2011 Invoice, Zeller filed a complaint against Sollers Point, seeking to recover the unpaid $44,996.44 it had invoiced. Sollers Point filed an answer to the complaint on September 3, 2015. Sollers Point filed a motion for summary judgment on September 7, 2018, which the trial court denied on November 20, 2018. The case then proceeded to a two-day bench trial, which was held on December 21, 2018, and January 29, 2019. Sollers Point requested that the trial court enter specific findings and conclusions pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52, and both parties submitted proposed findings and conclusions to the court. On April 26, 2019, the trial court entered its specific findings and conclusions, entering judgment in favor of Zeller in the amount of $26,729.00, with pre-judgment interest. The court determined that $18,267.44 of the amount Zeller sought was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

[9] On May 23, 2019, twenty-seven days after the entry of the trial court's final judgment, Sollers Point filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 28, 2019, thirty-two days after the trial court's judgment,⁵ Zeller filed a motion to correct error, arguing that the court had improperly excluded certain charges from its award of damages. Sollers Point filed a response to Zeller's motion on June 1, 2019, noting that the trial court would soon lose jurisdiction due to Sollers Point's pending appeal. On June 17, 2019, before the trial court ruled on Zeller's motion to correct error, the trial court clerk filed its Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record, at which time our court acquired jurisdiction pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 8. Despite our acquisition of jurisdiction over this case, the trial court entered an order purporting to grant Zeller's motion to correct error on June 21, 2019.

Standard of Review

[10] Our standard of review in cases where the trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law was set forth by this court in RCM Phoenix Partners, LLC v. 2007 E. Meadows, LP :

First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and second, whether the findings support the judgment. In deference to the trial court's proximity to the issues, we disturb the judgment only where there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. We do not reweigh the evidence but consider only the evidence favorable to the trial court's judgment. Challengers must establish that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced a mistake has been made. However, while we defer substantially to findings of fact, we do not do so to conclusions of law. Additionally, a judgment is clearly erroneous under Indiana Trial Rule 52 if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. We evaluate questions of law de novo and owe no deference to a trial court's determination of such questions.

118 N.E.3d 756, 759–60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. "Moreover, ‘[w]e may affirm a judgment on any legal theory, whether or not relied upon by the trial court, so long as the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous and support the theory adopted.’ " Id. at 760. (citing Estate of Kappel v. Kappel , 979 N.E.2d 642, 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) ); see also Mitchell v. Mitchell , 695 N.E.2d 920, 923–24 (Ind. 1998).

I. The Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Rule on Zeller's Motion to Correct Error

[11] Sollers Point first contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Zeller's motion to correct error. Specifically, Sollers Point contends that our court had already acquired jurisdiction over this case on June 17, 2019, when the trial court clerk issued its Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record, and the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to rule on Zeller's motion.

[12] As this court explained in Crider v. Crider ,

Under Indiana Appellate Rule 8, when a party initiates an appeal from a trial court o

...