Opinion ID: 852260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Effect of the Trial Court's Denial of Summary Judgment as to CGG

Text: The trial court granted Statom's motion to strike both Reiswerg's and CGG's motions for summary judgment asserting the statute of limitations defense. The Court of Appeals reversed as to CGG, finding that the fundamental difference between Reiswerg and CGG is that the trial court denied the motion for partial summary judgment as to CGG. Reiswerg v. Statom, 897 N.E.2d 490, 499 (Ind.Ct. App.2008). The Court of Appeals relied on Abbott v. Bates, 670 N.E.2d 916 (Ind.Ct. App.1996), for this conclusion. In Abbott, the plaintiff filed a foreclosure action against Abbott both individually and as trustee. The trial court granted summary judgment against Abbott individually but not against Abbott as trustee. Abbott later attempted to assert affirmative defenses, and the court found that she had waived them individually but not as trustee. The Court of Appeals held that the waiver determination in Abbott was based on the success or failure of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to Abbott individually and Abbott as trustee. Reiswerg, 897 N.E.2d at 499. We read Abbott differently, and conclude the difference in result turned on whether the summary judgment was dispositive of an entire claim: [W]e cannot say with certainty that the first order was dispositive as to this issue. Thus, Abbott was not required to preserve the issue of the mortgages' validity by appealing from the first grant of summary judgment nor was she precluded from raising the issue in opposition to Bates' second motion for summary judgment. Abbott, 670 N.E.2d at 921. We do not agree that whether Statom's motion for partial summary judgment succeeded or failed controls its preclusive effect. Specifically, a party's success or failure in opposing a partial summary judgment motion does not dictate whether that party waived an affirmative defense. Waiver of a contention is effected by the contention's being placed in issue by the movant and the non-movant's failure to raise it. When Statom moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of negligence, neither Reiswerg nor CGG asserted the statute of limitations in response. A non-movant's choice not to assert an affirmative defense as a response to a motion for partial summary judgment that does not implicate the affirmative defense does not bar later assertion of the defense.