Opinion ID: 2136101
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Revisions to T.R. 56

Text: We grant transfer and affirm the decision of the trial court because the evidence Rosi designated in his response to BFC's summary judgment motion neither demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact nor provided any evidence proving a contractual entitlement to compensation. We agree with Judge Hoffman's dissenting opinion, and commend in particular his focus on the designated evidentiary matter requirement of Trial Rule 56(C). Rosi, 601 N.E.2d at 411 (Hoffman, J., dissenting). Effective January 1991, we modified the summary judgment process through amendments to T.R. 56. No longer can parties rely without specificity on the entire assembled record  depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions  to fend off or support motions for summary judgment. It is not within a trial court's duties to search the record to construct a claim or defense for a party. Babinchak v. Town of Chesterton (1992), Ind. App., 598 N.E.2d 1099, 1101 (It is clear from ... amended [T.R. 56] that a court may not search the record when making a decision about [a] motion for summary judgment.). To promote the expeditious resolution of lawsuits and conserve judicial resources, T.R. 56(C) now requires each party to a summary judgment motion to  designate to the court all parts of pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters of judicial notice, and any other matters on which it relies for purposes of the motion. [2] In addition, the opposing party must designate to the trial court each material issue of fact which that party asserts precludes entry of summary judgment and the evidence relevant thereto. T.R. 56(C). The trial court must enter summary judgment if the  designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Id. (emphasis added). Our 1991 amendments also prohibit appellate courts from reversing summary judgment orders on the ground that there is a genuine issue of material fact unless the material facts and relevant evidence were specifically designated to the trial court. T.R. 56(H). In applying this new standard of review, Judge Miller has observed that T.R. 56(H) was specifically added to further impress upon us, as the reviewing court, the need for the parties to strictly comply with the designated evidentiary matter requirement of amended T.R. 56(C). Jackson v. Blanchard (1992), Ind. App., 601 N.E.2d 411, 415. On appeal, a trial court's grant of summary judgment is clothed with a presumption of validity. Caylor-Nickel Clinic, 587 N.E.2d at 1312-13. The appellant bears the burden of proving that the trial court erred in determining that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.