Walnut Grove Mutual Housing Association, Inc., Appellant v. Ellen Fisher and Jason Weides, Appellees (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Walnut Grove Mutual Housing Association, Inc., (“Walnut Grove”) appeals the trial court's October 23, 2025 Order on Attorney's Fees. Ellen Fisher and Jason Weides (“Plaintiffs”) request appellate attorney fees. We reverse, remand with instructions, and deny Plaintiffs’ request for appellate attorney fees.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that they entered into a contract with Walnut Grove for a dwelling unit and that, after taking possession of the unit, discovered water damage and mold. On February 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel requesting that the court order Walnut Grove to fully respond to requests for production of documents. Walnut Grove filed a response stating that it had provided ninety-three pages of documents and requested that the court deny Plaintiffs’ motion. On April 3, 2025, the court entered an order stating that it had held a hearing, granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel with respect to certain requests including as to documentation regarding Walnut Grove's internal investigation of Plaintiffs’ complaints of mold in their unit, and ordering Walnut Grove to conduct a thorough search of documents mentioning complaints regarding Plaintiffs’ unit.

[3] On July 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions. On July 25, 2025, Walnut Grove filed a reply arguing that Plaintiffs ignored their obligation to provide responses to interrogatories. On August 13, 2025, the court scheduled a hearing for September 10, 2025. On September 2, 2025, Walnut Grove filed a motion for sanctions arguing that Plaintiffs objected to each and every of its interrogatories and requesting that the court order Plaintiffs to provide responsive answers. Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike Walnut Grove's motion for sanctions arguing Walnut Grove failed to comply with the trial rules, confer with counsel, or file a discovery motion.

[4] On September 10, 2025, the court held a hearing on all pending motions and entered an order denying Walnut Grove's motion for sanctions and granting Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, specifically stating “[t]he Court finds that [Walnut Grove] should pay a portion of Plaintiffs’ attorney fees as a sanction for its failure to comply with previous Orders of this Court” and “Plaintiff[s] [are] directed to file a detailed, redacted accounting and breakdown of time and costs associated with same for the Court's consideration.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 61. The order also set deadlines for discovery and depositions. On September 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a petition for attorney fees stating that the court had granted their motion for sanctions and that an invoice for their attorney's related fees of $8,820 was attached. On September 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a corrected petition for attorney fees in the amount of $7,900. Also on that date, Plaintiffs filed a notice that they had served complete supplemental interrogatory answers to Walnut Grove.

[5] On September 29, 2025, Walnut Grove filed a “Notice of Settlement” providing: “[Walnut Grove], by counsel, informs the Court that the parties have reached a settlement in this matter and have executed a Settlement and General Release Agreement embodying the terms of their agreement. A signed stipulation of dismissal will be filed with the Court shortly.” Id. at 76. On October 23, 2025, the trial court entered an “Order on Attorney's Fees” ordering Walnut Grove to pay $7,900 in attorney fees as a sanction. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 9.

[6] On November 12, 2025, Walnut Grove filed a “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and to Reconsider Order of October 23, 2025.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 78. Walnut Grove argued that: the parties entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) on September 29, 2025 ¹ ; pursuant to the agreement, Walnut Grove paid funds to Plaintiffs’ counsel which were received on October 9, 2025 ² ; Plaintiffs “neglected, failed or refused to dismiss the case as required by Paragraph 2 of the agreement which mandated dismissal within five [business] days after receipt of the settlement consideration”; and “[b]y the agreement's terms, the stipulation should have been filed on or before October 16, 2025, but as of today, [Plaintiffs] still ha[ve] not done so.”³ Id. at 80. Walnut Grove noted the language in paragraphs 1 and 10 of the Settlement Agreement and argued, “[b]y entering the agreement and accepting the payment as called for in the agreement, and under its clear language, [Plaintiffs] agreed to release all claims against Walnut Grove, including [their] attempt to recover attorney fees sought in a previous motion.” Id. at 81. It argued Plaintiffs “cannot ‘double dip’ by claiming attorney fees that were explicitly released in the [S]ettlement [A]greement.” Id. at 82.

[7] The parties’ Settlement Agreement provides:

SETTLEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE AGREEMENT

* * * * *

By reason of disputes and controversies and in order to avoid further time, expense, and the uncertainties of litigation, and to buy peace, the Parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, agree to the terms of this Agreement as follows:

1. General Release and Covenant Not to Sue. For the consideration given herein, and except for these obligations created by or arising out of this Agreement, Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of their predecessors, successors, agents, assigns, attorneys, spouses, dependents, heirs, executors, and administrators, do hereby release and covenant not to sue [Walnut Grove] and its predecessors, successors, agents, and assigns, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Releasees”), with respect to and from any and all claims, demands, liens, agreements, covenants, actions, suits, causes of action, obligations, debts, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, judgments, orders and liabilities of whatever kind or nature in law, equity or otherwise, that they own or hold against Releasees as of the signing of this Agreement arising out of the Lawsuit, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any and all claims, demands, agreements, obligations and causes of action, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected arising out of or in any way connected with the Lawsuit at issue, or claims that could have been asserted by Plaintiffs in the Lawsuit.

2. Dismissal of Lawsuit. Plaintiffs shall file a dismissal with prejudice of the Lawsuit in the appropriate Court within five (5) business days upon receipt of the settlement consideration.

* * * * *

4. Settlement Consideration. In consideration of Plaintiffs’ General Release, covenant not to sue, indemnity agreement, and other promises contained in this Agreement, [Walnut Grove] agrees to pay Plaintiffs ․ the total amount of ․[4]

* * * * *

10. General Release. Plaintiffs hereby acknowledge and agree that the Releases set forth in Paragraph l are general releases and Plaintiffs further expressly waive and assume the risk of any and all claims for damages which exist as of this date, but of which they do not know or suspect to exist, and which, if known, would materially affect the decision to enter into this Agreement. Plaintiffs further agree that they accept payment of the sum specified in Paragraph 4 herein as a complete compromise of matters involving disputed issues of law and fact.

* * * * *

14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and includes and supersedes any and all prior negotiations, agreements, arrangements, conversations, representations and warranties pertinent to this subject matter. No waiver or amendment of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by each party to this Agreement.

15. Costs and Fees. The Parties shall pay their own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred in the prosecution, defense, and settlement of this matter.

Id. at 84-86.

[8] On November 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a “Response to Motion to Enforce” arguing in part that “all funds have not been received in this case because the court-ordered sanctions are still outstanding,” “Court-ordered sanctions were not resolved in the settlement agreement,” “the Court issued these sanctions after the parties executed the settlement agreement,” “[t]herefore, it could not be considered at the time of execution,” and, “[u]pon [Walnut Grove's] payment of these sanctions, Plaintiffs’ counsel agrees to file the stipulation of dismissal which [Walnut Grove's counsel] already approved.” Id. at 95, 97. On November 17, 2025, the court set the matter for hearing on December 17, 2025.⁵ On November 24, 2025, Walnut Grove filed a notice of appeal indicating that it was appealing the trial court's October 23, 2025 order pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 14(A). The Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record is noted in the chronological case summary (“CCS”) on November 25, 2025.⁶ On December 5, 2025, Walnut Grove filed a motion to stay trial court proceedings pending appeal, and on December 8, 2025, the trial court granted the motion and canceled the hearing set for December 17, 2025. On December 9, 2025, a “Stipulation of Dismissal” was filed with the trial court stating: “[Plaintiffs] and [Walnut Grove] hereby stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims in this action, each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.” December 9, 2025 Stipulation of Dismissal.⁷ The Stipulation of Dismissal was “approved and ordered” by the trial court on December 10, 2025. Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 103 (capitalization omitted).

Discussion

[9] Walnut Grove, in its Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, argued that Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the lawsuit within five business days of receiving the settlement funds, that they failed to do so, and that they released all claims against Walnut Grove including for attorney fees sought in a previous motion. Plaintiffs countered that they would file the stipulation of dismissal upon Walnut Grove's payment of the attorney fees.

[10] To the extent we must interpret the Settlement Agreement, interpretation of a settlement agreement presents a question of law and is reviewed de novo. Bailey v. Mann, 895 N.E.2d 1215, 1217 (Ind. 2008). Construction of settlement agreements is governed by contract law. Ind. State Highway Comm'n v. Curtis, 704 N.E.2d 1015, 1018 (Ind. 1998). If a contract's terms are clear and unambiguous, courts must give those terms their clear and ordinary meaning. Dunn v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 249, 251 (Ind. 2005). Courts should interpret a contract so as to harmonize its provisions, rather than place them in conflict. Id. at 252. We look at the contract as a whole. Id. “The task is to determine and implement the parties’ intent when they entered the contract.” Wohlt v. Wohlt, 245 N.E.3d 611, 616 (Ind. 2024).

[11] The record reveals that Plaintiffs filed their corrected petition for attorney fees on September 24, 2025. Days later, on September 29, 2025, Walnut Grove filed a notice with the court stating that the parties reached a settlement and that a “stipulation of dismissal will be filed with the Court shortly.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 76. The Settlement Agreement, in paragraph 4, provided, “[i]n consideration of Plaintiffs’ General Release ․ and other promises,” Walnut Grove agreed to pay Plaintiffs a certain sum of money. Id. at 85. The Settlement Agreement, in paragraph 2, provided that “Plaintiffs shall file a dismissal with prejudice of the Lawsuit ․ within five (5) business days upon receipt of the settlement consideration.” Id. at 84. Walnut Grove paid the settlement funds to Plaintiffs’ counsel, which was received on October 9, 2025, and Plaintiffs were then obligated to “file a dismissal” of the cause of action within five business days. Id. Plaintiffs did not abide by their agreement, waiting until December 9, 2025—after the court issued its October 23rd order, after Walnut Grove filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, and after Walnut Grove filed a notice of appeal and this Court acquired jurisdiction—to file the Stipulation of Dismissal.

[12] We note that the settlement was reached after the court issued the September 10, 2025 order finding that sanctions were proper and after Plaintiffs filed their September 24, 2025 corrected petition for attorney fees, and thus the parties were able to consider the September 10th order and the September 24th petition in reaching the terms of their settlement. Further, the Settlement Agreement provided, in paragraph 14, that it contained “the entire agreement and includes and supersedes any and all prior negotiations ․ pertinent to this subject matter.” Id. at 86. The parties agreed in paragraph 1 that, in order to avoid the uncertainties of litigation, Plaintiffs released Walnut Grove “from any and all claims, demands, ․ actions, suits, causes of action, obligations, debts, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, ․ and liabilities of whatever kind or nature in law, equity or otherwise ․ including ․ any and all claims ․ , obligations ․, known or unknown, ․ arising out of or in any way connected with the Lawsuit ․” Id. at 84. Further, in paragraph 10, Plaintiffs “expressly waive[d] and assume[d] the risk of any and all claims for damages which exist[ed] as of th[at] date, but of which they do not know or suspect to exist, and which, if known, would materially affect the decision to enter into this Agreement” and “agree[d] that they accept payment of the sum specified in Paragraph 4 herein as a complete compromise of matters involving disputed issues of law and fact.” Id. at 86.

[13] As is evident from the aforementioned language, the parties anticipated and agreed that Plaintiffs would dismiss their lawsuit within five business days of receiving the settlement amount specified in paragraph 4, and the Settlement Agreement did not provide that Plaintiffs would dismiss the lawsuit only after their receipt of an award of attorney fees. Based on the unambiguous terms of the Settlement Agreement, including its dismissal and release provisions, we conclude that the parties intended for Plaintiffs to “file a dismissal” of the cause of action during the timeframe set forth in the agreement and did not intend for Plaintiffs to delay filing for dismissal until the court issued an order on fees. Id. at 84. We reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the October 23, 2025 order and enter a dismissal of the cause of action.

[14] Plaintiffs request appellate attorney fees under Ind. Appellate Rule 66(E). This Court is authorized to assess damages if an appeal “is frivolous or in bad faith,” and such damages “shall be in the Court's discretion and may include attorneys’ fees.” Ind. Appellate Rule 66(E). A strong showing is required to justify an award of appellate damages, and the sanction is not imposed to punish mere lack of merit, but something more egregious. Bessolo v. Rosario, 966 N.E.2d 725, 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. To prevail on their request, Plaintiffs must show that Walnut Grove's arguments on appeal are “utterly devoid of all plausibility.” See id. As we reverse the appealed order, an award of appellate attorney fees is not warranted.

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand with instructions as set forth above and deny Plaintiffs’ request for appellate attorney fees.

[16] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The settlement agreement attached to the motion indicates that Plaintiffs signed the agreement on September 26, 2025, and the president of Walnut Grove signed the agreement on September 29, 2025

2.   A mailing receipt attached to the motion, under “USPS Tracking #,” contains a date of October 9, 2025. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 88.

3.   In its brief, Walnut Grove states “[Plaintiffs’] counsel received the settlement consideration on October 9, ․ and five business days later fell on October 17” and “Indiana courts were closed in observance of Columbus Day on October 13, 2025, and October 17 thus became the fifth business day following October 9.” Appellant's Brief at 5, 5 n.2.

4.   The amount specified in the Settlement Agreement in the record is redacted.

5.   Ind. Trial Court Rule 53.4(A) provides, “[n]o hearing shall be required upon ․ motions to reconsider orders or rulings upon a motion” and “[s]uch a motion by any party or the court or such action to reconsider by the court shall not delay the trial or any proceedings in the case, or extend the time for any further required or permitted action, motion, or proceedings under these rules.” Ind. Trial Court Rule 53.4(B) provides, “[u]nless such a motion is ruled upon within five (5) days it shall be deemed denied, and entry of service of notice of such denial shall not be required.”

6.   Ind. Appellate Rule 8 provides this Court “acquires jurisdiction on the date the Notice of Completion of Clerk's Record is noted in the Chronological Case Summary.”

7.   The stipulation contains the electronic signatures of the parties’ attorneys, and the words “(with permission)” followed the signature of Walnut Grove's attorney. December 9, 2025 Stipulation of Dismissal.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.