• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

(317) 639-4511

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Harrison Moberly LLP

Law Firm in Indianapolis, IN

  • HOME
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • Appellate Law
    • Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor Relations
    • Business Services
    • Construction Law
    • Employment Law
    • Environmental
    • Estate Planning, Wealth Transfer and Tax
    • Family Law
    • Insurance Services
    • Law Practice Succession Planning
    • Litigation Services
    • Mediation Roundtable LLC and Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Real Estate
    • Tax Controversy and Dispute Resolution
  • ATTORNEYS
    • A-K
      • Lisa M. Adler
      • Thaddeus R. Ailes
      • Stephen E. Arthur
      • Ashley A. Butz
      • Raeanna Carrell
      • William “Jay” Hancock
      • Natalie Hatfield
      • Lee L. Heyde
      • Don Hopper
    • L – Z
      • Patricia Polis McCrory
      • James J. McGrath
      • Tamie Jo Morog
      • Rory O’Bryan
      • Chad E. Oswald
      • Mark W. Pfeiffer
      • Fred D. Scott
      • Martha T. Starkey
      • David J. Theising
  • NEWS, EVENTS, & BLOGS
  • BILL PAY
  • LOCATIONS
  • Attorneys
    • A – K
      • Lisa M. Adler
      • Thaddeus R. Ailes
      • Stephen E. Arthur
      • Ashley A. Butz
      • Raeanna Carrell
      • William “Jay” Hancock
      • Natalie Hatfield
      • Lee L. Heyde
      • Don Hopper
    • L – Z
      • Patricia Polis McCrory
      • James J. McGrath
      • Tamie Jo Morog
      • Rory O’Bryan
      • Chad E. Oswald
      • Mark W. Pfeiffer
      • Fred D. Scott
      • Martha T. Starkey
      • David J. Theising
  • Practice Areas
    • Appellate Law
    • Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor Relations
    • Business Services
    • Construction Law
    • Employment Law
    • Environmental
    • Estate Planning, Wealth Transfer and Tax
    • Family Law
    • Insurance Services
    • Law Practice Succession Planning
    • Litigation Services
    • Mediation Roundtable LLC and Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Real Estate
    • Tax Controversy and Dispute Resolution
  • Bill Pay
  • Locations
  • (317) 639-4511

INDIANA CASE REVIEW: Merger, Notice of Appeal and Trial Rule 56(E)

April 16, 2006 //  by Stephen Arthur

Indiana Case Review

Merger, Notice of Appeal and Trial Rule 56(E)

Stephen E. Arthur

Doctrine of Merger

    Under the doctrine of merger, any existing contracts between parties, if not carried forward into the deed, are extinguished and no action on the contract survives.  An exception to the doctrine of merger exists where the contract creates rights collateral to and independent of the conveyance. 

    In Williams v. Younginer, 851 N.E.2d 351 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the Younginers came upon a newly constructed home they wanted to purchase.  A brochure obtained while viewing the home stated that Jerry Williams could be contacted for more information regarding the home.  The brochure did not state that Jerry Williams operated Building, Inc., which built and marketed homes. 

    After negotiations, a purchase agreement was signed by the Younginers as “buyers” and Williams as “seller.”  Williams’ capacity as president of Builder, Inc. was not apparent from the document.  Later, the Younginers became aware of defects in the home and commenced an action against Williams that involved claims for breach of implied warranties.  The Younginers recovered a judgment on the implied warranties count.

    On appeal, Williams asserted that any implied warranties were extinguished by the doctrine of merger.  The doctrine of merger by deed provides that in the absence of fraud or mistake, all prior or contemporaneous negotiations or executory agreements, written or oral, leading up to the execution of a deed are merged therein by the grantee’s acceptance of the conveyance in performance thereof.  Williams argued that Younginer could not assert a claim based on the purchase agreement.  The Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed.

    Rights that exist independent and collateral to the conveyance provide an exception to the doctrine of merger.  The court stated that, generally, these rights are not related to title, possession, quality, or emblements of the land contract, and survive because their performance is not necessary to the conveyance of the real estate.  There is no reason to merge them into the deed. 

    The Court of Appeals noted that the deed was silent on the issue of implied warranties and the implied warranties were not satisfied by a conveyance of the deed.  Therefore, the implied warranties survived the deed as did the Younginer’s claims. 

Timing of Notice to Appeal

The trial court has an obligation to promptly rule on a motion to correct error.  Under Trial Rule 53.3 a motion to correct error is deemed denied if not set for a hearing within forty-five days or is not ruled upon within thirty days after a hearing.  A trial court may continue a hearing on the motion so that a successor judge can be appointed and rule on the motion.

In Copenhaver v. Lister, 2006 WL 2323216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the Copenhavers appealed a judgment entered in favor of Lister on a claim for replevin of certain business assets and conversion.  The Court of Appeals opinion included an important procedural discussion regarding Lister’s argument that the appeal must be dismissed because Copenhaver has failed  to timely file a notice of appeal.

After judgment was entered against the Copenhavers, a timely motion to correct error was filed together with a pro se ethics complaint against the trial judge on May 4, 2005.  On June 8, 2005, the Copenhavers asked the court to set a hearing be set on their motion, and a hearing was scheduled for July 13, 2005.  The Judge recused himself on June 29, 2005, and ordered that the hearing on the motion “should be continued without date subject to a special judge appearing, qualifying and assuming jurisdiction of the case and then setting the hearing on the motion to correct errors.”  On July 13, 2005, a special judge was appointed.  On August 2, 2005, all deadlines were vacated and a telephone conference was set for August 19, 2005. On August 26, 2005, the trial court denied the motion and the Copenhavers filed their notice of appeal on September 23, 2005. 

Arguing that the notice of appeal was untimely and should be dismissed pursuant to Trial Rule 53.3, Lister claimed the decision of Williamson v. Williamson, 825 N.E.2d 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), controlled.  Specifically, Lister argued, when the recusal order was entered, the motion was deemed denied on August 13, 2005, because no hearing had been scheduled on the motion within forty-five days from the date of the recusal order.  To be timely, Lister asserted, the notice of appeal should have been filed by September 12, 2005.  The Court of Appeals disagreed. 

Noting the uncertainty as to whether the forty-five day requirement under Trial Rule 53.3, which applies to initial hearings, applied to rescheduled hearings, the court  distinguished the case from Williamson.  Unlike Williamson, the recusal order did not indefinitely continue the hearing but rather directed the successor judge to resume consideration of the motion and reset the hearing date.  Specifically, the court found “the trial court was simply providing additional time for the special judge to qualify, become familiar with the case, fairly assess the merits of the action, and conduct the hearing according to the availability of the court’s calendar.”  Expressly refusing to elevate form over substance, the court found that a bright line rule regarding the application of Rule 53.3 should not control and that the appeal was timely filed.

Admissibility of Affidavits under Trial Rule 56(E)

Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.  Trial Rule 56(E).

In City of Gary v. McCrady, 831 N.E.2d 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), McCrady was effectively terminated from his position as Chief of Operations by the Gary Common Council when the Council voted to fill the position with another applicant.  Alleging violations of the Open Door Law, McCrady filed suit against Gary and the Council.  Partial summary judgment was granted in favor of McCrady and the Council appealed. 

The Court of Appeals was asked to decide the admissibility of certain affidavits used to support McCrady’s motion for partial summary judgment.  One of the challenged affidavits was signed by the Public Access Counselor who conducted an investigation of the alleged violation of the Open Door Law.  The bulk of the affidavit referred to statements and investigations of third parties.  The Court of Appeals determined this illustrated an absence of personal knowledge.  Additionally, the court found that the affidavit contained impermissible legal conclusions and opinion, as well as inadmissible hearsay.

The second of the challenged affidavits was signed by McCrady, which the Council argued contained hearsay.  That affidavit, according to the Court of Appeals, simply quoted certain council members as to statements they allegedly made at council meetings.  Additionally, the affidavit included information from the deposition of a third party and attached exhibits which the court found were not based on McCrady’s personal knowledge, but, instead were statements containing inadmissible hearsay.  Therefore, the court held McCrady’s affidavit was inadmissible. 

This opinion is interesting because it suggests a shift in Indiana law towards that of other jurisdictions which hold that admissibility of affidavits for purposes of a motion for summary judgment is equivalent to admissibility of evidence at trial. This issue was last addressed by the Indiana Supreme Court in Reeder v. Harper, 788 N.E.2d 1236, 1241-1442 (Ind. 2003), where the court held: “[A]n affidavit that would be inadmissible at trial may be considered at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings if the substance of the affidavit would be admissible in another form at trial.”  The McCrady court did not discuss Reeder.
Stephen Arthur (sarthur@h-mlaw.com) is a partner with Harrison & Moberly, LLP, in Indianapolis, concentrating his practice in federal and state complex commercial litigation. Mr. Arthur is the author of books on Indiana Civil Trial Practice and Indiana Procedural Forms, and co-author of Professor Harvey’s volumes in West Publishing’s Indiana Practice Series. The author wishes to thank Paul Carroll for his assistance in the preparation of this case review.  The opinions and analysis expressed in this column are those of the author.

You May Also Be Interested In:

Estate Planning Considerations for New Parents

David Theising to Speak at 2021 Annual Meeting of ABA Forum on Construction Law in New York City

Execute Documents Remotely

Parenting Time During Governor Holcomb’s Stay at Home Order

Estate Planning During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

Virtual Estate Services

Estate Administration During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

Harrison & Moberly proudly sponsors 2019 APABA-IN Central Regional Conference

Hopper Appointed as Member of the Probate Code Study Commission

Next Post: INDIANA CASELAW UPDATE: Finality Of Judgment, Jurisdiction, And Reasonable Attorney Fees »

Primary Sidebar

Twitter

26 Sep 1574502378233122816

HM is excited to announce that Lisa M. Adler and Ashley A. Butz, members of the firm’s estate planning practice, have been named members to the Estate Planning Council of Indianapolis.

Reply on Twitter 1574502378233122816Retweet on Twitter 1574502378233122816Like on Twitter 15745023782331228161Twitter 1574502378233122816
30 Aug 1564625082563137548

Harrison Moberly is proud to recognize and congratulate its 2023 Best Lawyers!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison Moberly is proud to
Reply on Twitter 1564625082563137548Retweet on Twitter 1564625082563137548Like on Twitter 15646250825631375481Twitter 1564625082563137548
25 Feb 1497260344577867776

Harrison & Moberly, LLP is proud to recognize and congratulate its 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Star!

https://t.co/dtMUm1Bzfk

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison & Moberly, LLP is
Reply on Twitter 1497260344577867776Retweet on Twitter 1497260344577867776Like on Twitter 1497260344577867776Twitter 1497260344577867776
1 Jun 2021 1399791212056530945

Harrison & Moberly is pleased to officially return to the Downtown office today and celebrated the occasion with a Taco Tuesday lunch to catch up with each other in person!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison & Moberly is pleased
Reply on Twitter 1399791212056530945Retweet on Twitter 1399791212056530945Like on Twitter 13997912120565309451Twitter 1399791212056530945
18 Nov 2019 1196439093527416833

For the 3rd year, H&M Attorneys Mark Pfeiffer and Fred Scott attended the 2019 Tippecanoe County Veterans Stand Down event on November 2, 2019, to provide pro bono legal advice on issues that routinely impact Indiana veterans! We are so grateful for their dedication and service!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: For the 3rd year, H&M
Reply on Twitter 1196439093527416833Retweet on Twitter 1196439093527416833Like on Twitter 11964390935274168331Twitter 1196439093527416833
Load More...

Recent Posts

Estate Planning Considerations for New Parents

Starting a family involves preparation and thinking ahead. …

David Theising to Speak at 2021 Annual Meeting of ABA Forum on Construction Law in New York City

Harrison & Moberly attorney David Theising has been invited …

Execute Documents Remotely

We will soon be able to assist clients in executing their estate …

Parenting Time During Governor Holcomb’s Stay at Home Order

During the current World upheaval, parents are looking for …

Estate Planning During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

During this frightening time, we are all reminded of life’s …

Footer

INDIANAPOLIS
(317) 639-4511

8335 Keystone Crossing
Suite 220
Indianapolis, IN 46240

CARMEL
(317) 639-4511

760 S Rangeline Road
Suite 164
Carmel, IN 46032

LEBANON
(317) 639-4511

114 South Meridian St.
Suite A
Lebanon, IN 46052

Site Footer

The information contained on this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state.

Copyright © 2023 Harrison and Moberly LLP · All Rights Reserved ·