MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Dec 28 2015, 8:37 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Gregg Romaine
Romaine Law
Fishers, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Leo Prassas, December 28, 2015
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
64A05-1508-CT-1081
v. Appeal from the Porter Superior
Court
Corick Construction, LLC, The Honorable William E. Alexa,
Appellee-Defendant. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
64D02-1502-CT-891
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] In February of 2013, Appellant-Plaintiff Leo Prassas contracted with Appellee-
Defendant Corick Construction, LLC to have some roofing work done at his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 1 of 13
residence. After the work was completed, Prassas filed a small claims action
against Corick Construction alleging that the repairs had been completed in an
unworkmanlike manner. After the small claims court found in favor of Corick
Construction, Prassas filed the instant lawsuit, which alleges breach of contract,
breach of implied warranty, and deceptive practices. Corick Construction
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. Prassas responded to this motion and
filed a motion for default judgment. Following a hearing on the parties’
motions, the trial court issued an order in which it ruled in favor of Corick
Construction.
[2] Prassas appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of Corick
Construction. Concluding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in
effectively treating Corick Construction’s motion to dismiss as a motion for
summary judgment but that issues of material fact remain that would preclude
an award of summary judgment in Corick Construction’s favor, we reverse the
judgment of the trial court and remand the matter to the trial court for further
proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] At all times relevant to the instant appeal, Corick Construction was under a
voluntary-compliance order aimed at curtailing deceptive practices against
consumers to whom it had supplied roofing services. As part of this order,
Corick Construction was ordered to change its standard contract form to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 2 of 13
comply with Indiana law and to refrain from acting as a public insurance
adjuster.
[4] On February 13, 2013, Prassas and Corick Construction entered into a contract
for Corick to repair and replace Prassas’s hail-damaged roof. The contract
entered into by the parties is the same contract as the Indiana Attorney
General’s Office had prohibited Corick Construction from using. The contract
failed to provide a sufficient scope of services and provided for a guaranteed
recovery fee from the insurance proceeds even if Corick Construction did not
complete the contracted work.
[5] Corick Construction worked with Prassas and his insurance company to assess
Prassas’s damages and the associated repairs to assure that Prassas’s insurance
company would pay for the necessary roof repairs. In completing the
contracted work, Corick Construction replaced the shingles on the roof and
partially replaced the gutters and downspouts. Prassas, a senior citizen, was not
able to get up on the roof to inspect the installation of the shingles but
repeatedly complained to Corick Construction that the downspouts were not
replaced properly and the gutters were not angled properly to allow for the
proper flow of water into the downspouts.
[6] During the fall of 2014, a neighbor approached Prassas and informed him that
something appeared to be wrong with his roof. The neighbor, who had a
background in construction, told Prassas that the roof looked “wavy” and that
the shingles looked slightly curled at the edges. Appellant’s App. p. 6. During
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 3 of 13
the late fall 2014 and early winter of 2015, Prassas had his roof inspected by
several roofers. These roofers informed Prassas that they observed that the
shingle spacing varied greatly, the shingles looked worn and had curled at the
edges, and the gutters were not properly angled at the rear of the house.
[7] On February 4, 2015, Prassas filed a complaint for damages against Corick
Construction alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, and
deceptive practices. In this complaint Prassas acknowledges that Corick
Construction maintains that the roof and gutters were properly replaced and
that there is no defect with the work performed under the contract. Prassas
claims, however, that he will have to have the roof replaced and the gutters
rehung as a result of Corick Construction’s allegedly faulty installation of the
roof and gutters. Prassas claims that by acting as a public adjuster, Corick
Construction caused Prassas to “not have a final inspection by an insurance
representative who probably would have seen the defective workmanship.”
Appellant’s App. p. 8.
[8] On March 27, 2015, Corick Construction filed an Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6)
motion to dismiss Prassas’s complaint. In this motion, Corick Construction
alleged that the instant law suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because
Prassas had filed a small claims action against Corick Construction alleging
unworkmanlike quality of the roof replacement as it related to the same
contract and same set of facts that were referred to in the instant action. Corick
Construction indicated that the small claims action had been resolved against
Prassas, with the judge specifically finding that Prassas failed to prove faulty
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 4 of 13
workmanship in completing the contracted work. Corick Construction further
indicated that following the small claims court’s ruling, Prassas, by counsel, had
filed a motion to correct error and that this motion was subsequently deemed
denied by the small claims court.
[9] On March 31, 2015, Prassas responded to Corick Construction’s motion to
dismiss and moved for default judgment. Following a May 5, 2015 hearing on
the pending motions, the trial court took the matter under advisement. The
trial court subsequently issued an order in which it ruled in favor of Corick
Construction. This appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision
[10] Initially, we note that our disposition in the instant matter has been made more
difficult by the fact that Corick Construction failed to submit an appellee brief.
“Instead of imposing upon this court the burden of controverting arguments
advanced for reversal, however, Indiana courts have long applied a less
stringent standard of review with respect to showings of reversible error when
the appellee fails to file a brief.” Johnson Cty. Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v.
Burnell, 484 N.E.2d 989, 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). Thus, Prassas need only
establish the lower court committed prima facie error to win reversal. Id. (citing
Ind. State Bd. of Health v. Lakeland Disposal Serv., Inc., 461 N.E.2d 1145, 1145 n. 1
(Ind. Ct. App. 1984)). “In this context, ‘prima facie’ means at first sight, on
first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. (quoting Harrington v. Hartman, 142
Ind. App. 87, 88, 233 N.E.2d 189, 191 (1968)). Likewise, the statement of facts
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 5 of 13
contained in Prassas’s brief “is deemed by us to be accurate and sufficient for
the disposition of this appeal.” Id. (citing Colley v. Carpenter, 172 Ind. App. 638,
362 N.E.2d 163 (1977)).
I. Proper Treatment of a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) Motion to
Dismiss as a Motion for Summary Judgment
[11] On appeal, Prassas contends that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of
Corick Construction. In raising this contention, Prassas asserts that the trial
court relied on evidence outside of the pleadings. Prassas further asserts that
the trial court effectively treated Corick’s motion to dismiss as a motion for
summary judgment. Prassas claims that it was erroneous for the trial court to
do so because it ruled on the motion without providing Prassas the opportunity
to put forth evidence which he claims would show the existence of genuine
issues of material fact.
[12] [Indiana Trial] Rule 12(B) provides that a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim shall be treated as a motion for summary
judgment when “matters outside the pleading are presented to
and not excluded by the trial court.” Where a trial court treats a
motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, the court must
grant the parties a reasonable opportunity to present T.R. 56
materials. See T.R. 12(B); Biberstine v. New York Blower Co., 625
N.E.2d 1308, 1313 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. dismissed. The
trial court’s failure to give explicit notice of its intended
conversion of a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment
is reversible error only if a reasonable opportunity to respond is
not afforded a party and the party is thereby prejudiced. Ayres v.
Indian Heights Volunteer Fire Department, 493 N.E.2d 1229, 1233
(Ind. 1986).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 6 of 13
Our review of the relevant cases discloses at least four
considerations pertinent to a determination of whether a trial
court’s failure to give express notice deprives the nonmovant of a
reasonable opportunity to respond with T.R. 56 materials. First,
we consider whether the movant’s reliance on evidence outside
the pleadings should have been so readily apparent that there is
no question that the conversion is mandated by T.R. 12(B). See
Duran v. Komyatte, 490 N.E.2d 388, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986),
trans. denied (noting that the operation of T.R. 12(B) is “well
known” and a “clear mandate” of which counsel should be
cognizant). Second, we consider whether there was ample time
after the filing of the motion for the nonmovant to move to
exclude the evidence relied upon by the movant in support of its
motion or to submit T.R. 56 materials in response thereto. See
Biberstine, 625 N.E.2d at 1314. Third, we consider whether the
nonmovant presented “substantiated argument” setting forth
how she “would have submitted specific controverted material
factual issues to the trial court if [she] had been given the
opportunity.” Ayres, 493 N.E.2d at 1233 (citing Macklin v. Butler,
553 F.2d 525, 528 (7th Cir. 1977)).
Azhar v. Town of Fishers, 744 N.E.2d 947, 950-51 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (first set of
brackets added, footnote omitted).
[13] In Azhar, we concluded that the trial court did not commit reversible error by
treating the Defendants’ motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment
because the Defendants’ reliance on evidence outside the pleadings was
unmistakable and “given the mandatory wording of Trial Rule 12(B), Azhar
should have known that the trial court was compelled to convert the motion to
a summary judgment motion.” Id. at 951. We also noted that the approximate
three-month period between the filing of the motion to dismiss and the hearing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 7 of 13
thereon was ample time to allow Azhar to “(1) move to exclude the evidence
relied upon by the Defendants; (2) file a motion for additional time to conduct
discovery to ascertain the evidence in opposition to the motion; and/or (3)
submit materials in opposition thereto.” Id. We last noted that Azhar had
“failed to show, either in the hearing below or in her appellate briefs, what
specific additional material she would have presented if express notice had been
given.” Id.
[14] Here, similar to Azhar, we must conclude that the trial court did not commit
reversible error by considering the evidence outside the pleadings submitted by
Corick Construction and effectively treating Corick Construction’s motion to
dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. Again, “[t]he trial court’s failure to
give explicit notice of its intended conversion of a motion to dismiss to one for
summary judgment is reversible error only if a reasonable opportunity to
respond is not afforded a party and the party is thereby prejudiced.” Id. at 950.
Upon review, we cannot say that Prassas was prejudiced or denied a reasonably
opportunity to respond.
[15] As in Azhar, Corick Construction’s reliance on evidence outside the pleadings
was unmistakable. Thus, given the mandatory wording of Indiana Trial Rule
12(B), Prassas should have known that the trial court was compelled to convert
the motion into a motion for summary judgment. The record reflects that
counsel for Prassas did, in fact, make such realization, acknowledging that
because Corick Construction attached the small claims court judgment to its
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 8 of 13
motion, the motion should have been treated as a motion for summary
judgment.
[16] We also believe that Prassas had ample time to (1) move to exclude the
evidence relied on by Corick Construction, (2) file a motion for additional time
to conduct discovery, or (3) to submit materials in opposition thereto. The
record reveals that Prassas responded to Corick Construction’s motion. Over
one month later, the trial court conducted a hearing on the pending motions.
During this hearing, counsel for Prassas presented argument before the trial
court stating Prassas’s opposition to Corick Construction’s motion. In doing
so, counsel for Prassas acknowledged that Corick Construction’s motion was,
in effect, a summary judgment motion. Counsel for Prassas also presented
argument akin to what would be argued during a summary judgment hearing,
i.e., argument aimed at showing that an issue of material fact existed with
regard to whether Prassas’s claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Specifically, Prassas argued that the issues raised in the instant matter were not
the same as those raised in the small claims action but rather represented
separate and distinct allegations of inadequate workmanship by Corick
Construction. Prassas has not indicated what specific additional information he
would have presented if express notice that the motion to dismiss would be
treated as a motion for summary judgment had been given.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 9 of 13
II. Propriety of Judgment in Favor of Corick
Construction
[17] Prassas appears to alternatively contend on appeal that, even assuming the trial
court correctly treated Corick Construction’s motion to dismiss as a motion for
summary judgment, the trial court’s ruling in favor of Corick Construction was
erroneous. Thus, having concluded that the trial court did not commit
reversible error by considering Corick Construction’s motion to dismiss as a
motion for summary judgment, we must next consider whether summary
judgment is appropriate.
The purpose of summary judgment is to end litigation about
which there can be no factual dispute and which may be
determined as a matter of law. LeBrun v. Conner, 702 N.E.2d 754,
756 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). The moving party bears the burden of
making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of
material fact. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Campbell v. Criterion Group,
613 N.E.2d 423, 428 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), on reh’g 621 N.E.2d
342. It is only after the moving party makes a prima facie
showing of the non-existence of a genuine issue of material fact
that the burden shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific
facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. T.R.
56(E); Campbell, 613 N.E.2d at 428.
Id. at 952.
[18] Four elements determine whether a judgment has res judicata
effect: 1) the former judgment must have been rendered by a
court of competent jurisdiction; 2) the matter now in issue was,
or might have been, determined in the former suit; 3) the
particular controversy previously adjudicated must have been
between the parties to the present suit or their privies; and 4) the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 10 of 13
judgment in the former suit must have been rendered on the
merits. Cox v. Ind. Subcontractors Ass’n, Inc., 441 N.E.2d 222, 225
(Ind. Ct. App. 1982).
Moreton v. Auto-Owners Ins., 859 N.E.2d 1252, 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
(emphasis added). The parties do not appear to dispute that the small claims
judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, that the particular
controversy previously adjudicated was between the same parties as the instant
matter, or that the small claims judgment was rendered on the merits.
[19] However, Prassas argued below, and again on appeal, that the issues presented
in the instant law suit were not the same as those raised in the small claims
action. Prassas specifically asserts on appeal that although Corick Construction
claims that he was “trying to take two bites at the apple, it’s just not true.” Tr.
p. 12.
[20] The documents designated by Corick Construction and the argument offered by
Prassas indicate that the small claims action involved allegations of faulty
workmanship relating to the installation of a soffit. The complaint filed in the
instant matter, however, involves the allegedly improper installation of shingles,
gutters, and downspouts. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Corick
Construction committed a breach of contract and breach of implied warranty
with regard to the allegedly improper installation of the shingles, gutters, and
downspouts. The complaint also contains the claim that the allegedly improper
installation was not noticed upon final inspection because Corick Construction,
in violation of a voluntary-compliance order that it had entered into with the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 11 of 13
Indiana Attorney General, worked with Prassas’s insurance company to assess
Prassas’s damages, the associated necessary repairs, and the sum of funds that
would be paid out for the completed repairs.
[21] In addition, the complaint alleges that Prassas did not learn of the full extent of
the allegedly improper installation of the shingles, gutters, and downspouts
until he had his roof inspected by several roofers in late 2014 and early 2015.
The designated documents demonstrate that the small claims court trial was
conducted on November 21, 2014, and the court’s decision issued on December
3, 2014. Thus, the pleadings and designated documents present an issue of
material fact as to whether Prassas was aware of the allegedly improper
installation of the shingles, gutters, and downspouts at the time he filed the
small claims court action. It is reasonable to assume that if he did not know of
the improper installation, he could not have included such claims in the small
claims action.
[22] Given that Prassas need only make a prima facie case of error, we conclude that
the record indicates that an issue of material fact exists as to whether the claims
raised in the instant lawsuit were the same as those raised before the small
claims court. Because issue of material fact remains, we conclude that the trial
court erred in ruling in Corick Construction’s favor and dismissing the instant
lawsuit.
[23] The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 12 of 13
Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1508-CT-1081 | December 28, 2015 Page 13 of 13