MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Aug 17 2016, 5:39 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Paul J. Watts Julie A. Camden
Spencer, Indiana Camden & Meridew, P.C.
Fishers, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Scott Haywood and Carin August 17, 2016
Haywood (AKA Carin Price) Court of Appeals Case No.
DBA Haywood’s Auto Sales & 67A01-1603-CC-701
Service, Appeal from the Putnam Circuit
Appellants, Court
The Honorable Matthew L.
v. Headley, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
Circle Distributing, Inc., 67C01-1408-CC-262
Appellee
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1603-CC-701 | August 17, 2016 Page 1 of 10
Case Summary
[1] Circle Distributing, Inc., (“Circle”) brought suit against Scott Haywood
(“Scott”) and Carin Haywood (collectively, “the Haywoods”), doing business
as Haywood’s Auto Sales & Services (collectively, “Haywood’s Auto”), for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and failure to pay account on a contract
for auto parts. Following a bench trial where the Haywoods and their attorney
failed to appear after a denial of a motion for continuance, the court entered a
judgment in favor of Circle. Haywood’s Auto now brings this appeal, in which
it argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying its post-judgment
motions challenging the court’s denial of Haywood’s Auto’s motion for
continuance. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On October 13, 2013, Haywood’s Auto and Circle entered into a credit
agreement for the purchase and payment of automotive products, with a
starting credit limit of $500.00 set to double every time Haywood’s Auto paid
its bill in full. (Tr. at 6) For four months, starting in December 2013,
Haywood’s Auto paid its bill with Circle on the day of each new delivery.
However, starting in May 2014, Circle made deliveries without payment. After
several attempts to procure payment from Haywood’s Auto, Circle filed suit
against Haywood’s Auto in the Putnam Circuit Court, alleging breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and failure to pay.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1603-CC-701 | August 17, 2016 Page 2 of 10
[3] This matter was set to be tried at 9:00 a.m. on January 20, 2016. On January
19, Haywood’s Auto filed a motion for continuance, citing a weather advisory
for Putnam County. Haywood’s Auto claimed in its motion that should the
area receive the anticipated amount of snowfall, it would be impossible for an
essential witness and Haywood’s Auto’s counsel, Paul Watts (“Watts”), to be
present at the court at the scheduled time and place. (App. at 39) The court
advised Haywood’s Auto that it was not inclined to grant this motion. The
next morning, the Haywoods, Watts, and the essential witness failed to appear
in court for the trial. However, Circle’s counsel and witnesses were able to
make it to court despite a longer commute in similar road and weather
conditions (App. at 66), as were the judge and all court staff. The court denied
Haywood’s Auto’s motion for continuance and proceeded with the hearing. At
the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered judgment in favor of Circle.
[4] After the hearing, Haywood’s Auto filed a second motion for continuance,
more appropriately characterized as a motion to reconsider, claiming that
Haywood’s Auto’s counsel and witness were unable to attend due to
“inclement weather and road conditions.” (App. at 41) Furthermore, Scott
himself was stuck between two accidents on I-70 and “working an emergency
tow.” (App. at 41) The court denied this motion as well.
[5] On February 12, 2016, Haywood’s Auto filed a motion to correct error and,
alternatively, a motion for relief from judgment. Haywood’s Auto attached
affidavits from Watts and Scott to its motion to correct error. In Watts’s
affidavit, he claimed that he was “iced in” at his residence in Monroe County
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1603-CC-701 | August 17, 2016 Page 3 of 10
and was unable to make it to court that day. (App. at 47) Similarly, the
essential witness, Watts’s paralegal, was facing similar conditions at her
residence in Owen County. (App. at 47) Watts advised the court of this
difficulty at 8:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing. (App. at 47) Scott’s affidavit
states that he was responding to calls from the Putnam County Sheriff’s
Department for emergency tow services from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the day
of the hearing. (App. 53) Haywood’s Auto attached the same documents to
the motion for relief from judgment, and used the same arguments therein.
Haywood’s Auto thus alleged the court erred in denying its motion for
continuance, and moved for this error to be corrected.
[6] After receiving Circle’s objection to the motions, the trial court denied both the
motion to correct error and the motion for relief from judgment. Haywood’s
Auto now appeals from the denial of these motions.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Haywood’s Auto appeals the denial of its motion to correct errors, which
challenges the denial of its motion for continuance. At the outset, we note that
this appeal does not involve a direct challenge to the merits of the trial court’s
judgment or to the amount of the judgment. Instead, we review only the
court’s denial of Haywood Auto’s motion to correct error focusing on the
denial of its motion for continuance for abuse of discretion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1603-CC-701 | August 17, 2016 Page 4 of 10
[8] A trial court is vested with broad discretion to determine whether it will grant
or deny a motion to correct error. Williamson v. Williamson, 825 N.E.2d 33, 44
(Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Similarly, the decision to grant or deny a continuance is
within the sound discretion of the trial court. Hess v. Hess, 679 N.E.2d 153, 154
(Ind. Ct. App. 1997). We thus review these decisions for an abuse of the trial
court’s discretion. See, e.g., J.P. v. G.M., 14 N.E.3d 786, 789 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014); Verta v. Pucci, 14 N.E.3d 749, 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). An abuse of
discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision was against the logic and effect and
circumstances before the court or if the court has misapplied the law. Walker v.
Kelley, 819 N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
[9] Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 53.5 states: “Upon motion, trial may be
postponed or continued in the discretion of the court, and shall be allowed upon
a showing of good cause established by affidavit or other evidence.” When
considering a motion for continuance, the moving party must be free from fault
and show that his rights are likely to be prejudiced by the denial. Scott v.
Crussen, 741 N.E.2d 743, 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Danner v. Danner,
573 N.E.2d 934, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)), trans. denied. “A denial of a motion
for continuance is [considered to be an] abuse of discretion only if the movant
demonstrates good cause for granting it.” Blackford v. Boone County Area Plan
Com’n, 43 N.E.3d 655, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Gunashekar v. Grose,
915 N.E.2d 953, 955 (Ind. 2009)) (internal quotations omitted). Although an
unavoidable absence of a party is good cause for a continuance, “it is not error
to deny a continuance when the party fails to show a sufficient reason for his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1603-CC-701 | August 17, 2016 Page 5 of 10
absence.” Flick v. Simpson, 252 N.E.2d 508, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 1969), reh’g
denied. Leaving this decision to the trial court’s broad discretion is consistent
with its duty to handle its business expeditiously. Id.
[10] Haywood’s Auto asserts that the impending bad weather at the time of filing
the first motion constituted good cause for a continuance, and thus, we should
find the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motion. However, the
record paints a different picture. When Haywood’s Auto filed its first motion
for continuance, the trial court indicated that it was not inclined to grant that
continuance given the current weather and road conditions. (Tr. at 2) Scott
himself did not make an attempt to attend the hearing in spite of that
knowledge, choosing instead to go on emergency tow calls from the Putnam
County Sheriff’s Department. Furthermore, local schools were in session after
a two-hour delay, and the opposing party and all their witnesses were in
attendance in spite of longer commutes. (Tr. at 2) With this knowledge, the
court determined that Haywood’s Auto did not present good cause and failed to
make arrangements to attend the hearing at its “own peril.” (Tr. at 2) We
conclude this rationale was not against the logic and effect of the circumstances
before the court. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion for continuance, nor did it do so when it denied Haywood Auto’s
motion to correct error.1
1
As previously mentioned, Haywood’s Auto also filed a motion for relief from judgment under Trial Rule
60(B) that was denied with the motion to correct error; however, it failed to make a separate argument
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1603-CC-701 | August 17, 2016 Page 6 of 10
[11] Affirmed.
Barnes, J., concurs.
Riley, J., dissents with separate opinion.
thereon in its appeal. Haywood’s Auto fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, and is thus not entitled to
the extraordinary relief of T.R. 60(B).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1603-CC-701 | August 17, 2016 Page 7 of 10
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Scott Haywood and Carin Court of Appeals Case No.
Haywood (aka Carin Price) dba 67A01-1603-CC-701
Haywood’s Auto Sales &
Service,
Appellants-Defendants,
v.
Circle Distributing, Inc.,
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Riley, Judge dissenting
[12] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s
denial of Haywood’s Auto’s motion for continuance. Generally, “upon a
showing of good cause established by affidavit or other evidence,” a trial may
be continued at the discretion of the court. See Ind. Trial Rule 53.5. Here, the
affidavit submitted by Haywood’s Auto established that during the afternoon
and night prior to the trial, a winter weather advisory was in effect for a five
county area, with Monroe and Owen County each receiving 3.5 inches of snow,
Putnam County getting 2 inches of snow, and with “solid ice on county roads.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1603-CC-701 | August 17, 2016 Page 8 of 10
(Appellant’s App. p. 46). That afternoon, Haywood’s Auto’s counsel filed a
motion requesting a continuance of the bench trial scheduled for the following
morning, citing hazardous road conditions.
[13] Early the following morning, I-70 had been sporadically closed. At
approximately 7:30 a.m. on the morning of the trial, Scott was instructed by the
Indiana State Police to proceed to the scene of an accident “to provide
emergency towing services.” (Appellant’s App. p. 52). While on his way,
Scott’s route was blocked by a collision of two semi-trailers. Scott reported the
accident and remained on the scene. Haywood’s Auto’s counsel, again, by
phone notified the trial court of the situation and renewed his request for
continuance.
[14] Meanwhile, Scott was instructed by emergency and law enforcement personnel
to hook his tow truck onto one of the tractor trailers to allow the injured driver,
who was trapped inside, to breath. The driver was later transported to
Indianapolis via Life-Line helicopter. After the driver was airlifted, Scott was
instructed by the Indiana State Police to remain at the scene and to help remove
the semi-trailers as the interstate was completely blocked and impassable. The
Indiana State Police continued dispatching Scott to four other accidents until
after 5:00 p.m. that day.
[15] Based on these facts, good cause existed to grant Haywood’s Auto’s motion for
continuance. A weather advisory is not merely an inconvenience; rather, it is
issued so people can use their best judgment whether to travel on hazardous
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1603-CC-701 | August 17, 2016 Page 9 of 10
roads. Requiring Scott to ignore his obligation to provide emergency towing
services and to leave an injured driver trapped in his semi-trailer contrary to the
instructions of law enforcement officers in order to attend his bench trial would
subject him to prosecution for refusing to aid an officer pursuant to Ind. Code §
35-44.1-3-3. Surely, the presumed exigencies of the trial court cannot take
precedence to putting one’s life at risk due to hazardous road conditions or to
helping to save another individual at the request of law enforcement personnel.
Because of the trial court’s denial to continue the bench trial, an important
witness was not able to testify. The absence of this witness led to a judgement
that was not based on the merits of the case. Accordingly, I conclude that the
trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a continuance.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 67A01-1603-CC-701 | August 17, 2016 Page 10 of 10