The trial court granted SRS's motion to dismiss and denied Decker's motion for summary judgment. Decker filed a timely notice of appeal. In addition, it is our duty to determine whether those pleaded facts and inferences state a claim, not only on the theory which may be espoused by the plaintiffs, but on any possible theory we can divine. The trial court made factual findings based, at least in part, on the affidavit Decker filed with his motion for summary judgment. Therefore, this case should be considered as a summary judgment case.
Summary judgment is proper where the only question or questions presented are questions of law.
The burden on the party seeking summary judgment is a strict one. The trial court is required to resolve all facts and inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought. Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the case before us, there appears to be no genuine issue of material fact. This court must, therefore, determine whether SRS was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.