Grant v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. (IN)
Summary: A party cannot circumvent a ruling by filing a new complaint that raises identical legal and factual issues as the original complaint.
Grant v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., 30 N.E.3d 733 (Ind. App. 2015).
Facts: On January 28, 2004, Demetrius and Vickie Grant executed a note and mortgage for $127,500 with Paragon Home Lending, which was eventually assigned to the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company (Mellon). In 2007, the Grants filed for bankruptcy and were allowed to discharge the mortgage. The Grants stopped making their payments beginning in August of 2007.
On November 26, 2007, Mellon filed a complaint to foreclose the mortgage but did not take action to the suit for over a year and a half, so the judge set the cause for call of the docket on July 29, 2009. Demetrius Grant appeared for the hearing, but Mellon did not. The complaint was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Eight months later, Mellon filed a motion to reinstate the complaint, which the trial court initially granted. Upon a motion by the Grants, the trial court returned the case to disposed status on April 23, 2010. Mellon did not appeal this ruling.
Mellon failed to reinstate the case again. Two months later, Mellon filed a new complaint with the same allegations as the first complaint. The Grants filed a motion to dismiss based on res judicata but were denied. The Grants filed for a new judge, and the court granted it. Mellon motioned for summary judgment, and the Grants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. On March 26, 2014, the trial court granted Mellon’s summary judgment. The Grants appealed.
Holding: Reversed and remanded. Looking at the two complaints, the appellate court determined that they were based on the same alleged default. The court ruled that the new complaint was improper under Trial Rule 41 and res judicata. A party cannot circumvent a ruling by filing a new complaint that raises the identical legal and factual issues as the original complaint.
Print this page