Susan Tennant v. Peaks & Valleys, Inc., and Toni Staples (mem. dec.)

Opinion

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