SANDERS v. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After Elizabeth Osborne died, U.S. Bank National Association filed a mortgage-foreclosure action against her “Unknown Heirs at Law.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 pp. 29-64. Osborne's daughter, Jennifer Sanders, intervened in the case as a defendant. U.S. Bank later moved for summary judgment three times. The first time, the trial court denied the motion because U.S. Bank had failed to show that (1) “it provided sufficient notice of the alleged default as required under the contract” and (2) “it has a security interest in the Note.” Id. at 160. The second time, the trial court denied the motion because it was “based on the same issues and facts that were decided in this Court's ruling on Plaintiff's initial motion and Plaintiff failed to submit new evidence related to the issues identified in the original ruling.” Appellant's App. Vol. 3 p. 151. The third time, however, over Sanders's objection that the motion was the same as the others, the court granted summary judgment to U.S. Bank without explanation. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 28 (“The Court, having held hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment on March 3, 2025, Attorney Ian Flora appearing on behalf of Plaintiff, Defendant Jennifer Sanders appearing with Attorney David Pruitt, now finds no genuine issue of fact. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.”).

[2] Sanders now appeals. She renews her argument that U.S. Bank's third summary-judgment motion was repetitive of the first two and was therefore improper under our decision in Rotec, Division of Orbitron, Inc. v. Murray Equipment, Inc., 626 N.E.2d 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993). There, we held that a party improperly filed a second summary-judgment motion that raised the same issues and facts as the first motion. Id. at 538; see also Meridian Ins. Co. v. Zepeda, 734 N.E.2d 1126, 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Rotec for the proposition that “once an issue has been decided in a motion for summary judgment, the parties may not file successive motions”), trans. denied.

[3] In its appellee's brief, U.S. Bank generally asserts—without any discussion of the merits of its third motion and without any citation to the record—that “the Trial Court's decision to grant U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment was correct and should be upheld.” Appellee's Br. p. 5. But it doesn't dispute that the third motion was a repeat of the first two, and it doesn't mention Rotec, let alone argue that it is distinguishable or that it was wrongly decided. Because this is the equivalent of filing no brief at all, and because Sanders has made a prima facie showing of error, we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment. See Evansville Auto., LLC v. Labno-Fritchley, 207 N.E.3d 447, 454 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (“An appellee's failure to respond to an issue raised by an appellant is akin to failure to file a brief, and subjects the appellee to reversal upon the appellant's showing of prima facie error on that issue.” (quotation omitted)), trans. denied.

[4] Reversed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Felix, J., concur.