Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Hanover Logansport v. Robert C. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District · 1987 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureT.R. 68offer of judgmentconsent judgmentmotion to dismissclaim preclusionreservation of claimsspecific performance

Facts

Hanover leased commercial space to Anderson and agreed to remove the existing tenant, Discount Liquors, before the lease commencement date, but failed to do so. Anderson sued for breach of contract and lease, requesting either occupancy under the lease or, alternatively, lost profits for the term of the lease. Before trial, Hanover made a Trial Rule 68 offer tendering the leased premises under the lease terms, and Anderson accepted while stating the acceptance was only for mitigation and not settlement of damages from the breach. Anderson later took possession of the premises, and Hanover then moved to dismiss the remaining litigation.

Issue

When a plaintiff accepts a Trial Rule 68 offer of judgment that grants one of the alternative forms of relief requested in the complaint, may the plaintiff continue to seek additional damages arising from the same cause of action? More specifically, may the plaintiff reserve such a claim through language in its acceptance when the claim was not clearly set out in the complaint and not clearly agreed to by both parties?

Rule

The preclusive effect of a consent judgment is measured by the intent of the parties, but a claim or issue is reserved only if both parties clearly agree to the reservation and the reservation is precisely stated. To reserve a claim or issue after a Trial Rule 68 consent judgment, the reservation must be incorporated into the offer of judgment itself and must concern a claim or issue that is an inherent part of the original complaint.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Fort Wayne, Lena Ortiz sued Riverbend Market Properties for breach of a commercial lease, seeking either immediate possession of a storefront or, alternatively, $180,000 in pleaded delay damages for six months of lost business. Before trial, Riverbend served a Trial Rule 68 offer granting possession and expressly stating that Lena's pleaded claim for six months of delay damages would remain for later adjudication; Lena accepted and took possession.

May Lena continue litigating the delay-damages claim after judgment is entered on the offer?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, the preclusive effect of a consent judgment turns on party intent, but any reserved claim must be clearly agreed upon by both parties, precisely stated, incorporated into the offer of judgment itself, and be an inherent part of the original complaint. Here, the offer itself expressly preserved Lena's pleaded delay-damages claim, so the claim may proceed.