MEMORANDUM DECISION
ON REHEARING
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 28 2018, 10:44 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Nathan D. Hoggatt Dawn M. Boyd
Fort Wayne, Indiana Law Office of Dawn M. Boyd
Columbia City, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Susan Tennant, August 28, 2018
Appellant-Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
92A04-1710-CC-2474
v. Appeal from the Whitley Circuit
Court
Peaks & Valleys, Inc., and The Honorable Matthew J.
Toni Staples, Rentschler, Judge
Appellees-Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Trial Court Cause No.
92C01-1505-CC-201
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 92A04-1710-CC-2474 | August 28, 2018 Page 1 of 2
[1] We grant Tennant’s petition for rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing
her argument that we erred by finding that the trial court’s order did not refer to
modifications to the Project. We found that “as the trial court did not make
any findings of fact or conclusions of law related to modifications under HICA,
it appears that Tennant is raising this issue for the first time on appeal.”
Tennant v. Peaks & Valleys, Inc., No. 92A04-1710-CC-2474, slip op. at 8 n.9 (Ind.
Ct. App. July 6, 2018).
[2] Tennant points out that the trial court did make findings of fact and conclusions
of law about the modifications. It is true that the trial court mentioned
modifications in its order—but the trial court did not make findings of fact or
conclusions of law about the modifications under HICA. Rather, its conclusions
of law about modifications to the Project clearly fall under its discussion of
P&V’s breach of contract claim. Appealed Order p. 8.
[3] Our original decision stands.
Vaidik, C.J., and Barnes, S.J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 92A04-1710-CC-2474 | August 28, 2018 Page 2 of 2