Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Combined Opinion

                  by Judge Mathias](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10804314/clarence-white-v-reiling-teder-schrier-llc/about:blank#o1) The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Clarence White v. Reiling Teder & Schrier, LLC

Indiana Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25A-CT-00940
• Judges: Mathias, May, Felix

• Disposition: Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (11)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (28.6K)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Combined Opinion

                        by [Paul D. Mathias](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/7268/paul-d-mathias/)

FILED
Mar 05 2026, 8:40 am

CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Folabi Oshinubi, Denzel Lewis, and Clarence White,
Appellants-Plaintiffs

v.

Reiling Teder & Schrier, LLC,
Appellee-Defendant

March 5, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
25A-CT-940
Appeal from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court
The Honorable Sean M. Persin, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79C01-2102-CT-22

Opinion by Judge Mathias
Judges May and Felix concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-940 | March 5, 2026 Page 1 of 10
Mathias, Judge.

[1] Folabi Oshinubi, Denzel Lewis, and Clarence White (the “Tenants”) appeal the

trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Reiling Teder & Schrier, LLC

(“RTS”) on their complaints against RTS under the federal Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 -1692p (2020). The

Tenants raise three issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as

whether the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment for RTS.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History1
[3] In August 2018, the Tenants began to live at a residence in West Lafayette they

had agreed to lease from Krys Szalasny (the “Landlord”). The Tenants paid a

security deposit in the amount of $1,850 and timely paid monthly rent

thereafter. As a condition of the lease, the residence was to be in “good

condition” upon the Tenants leaving the residence. In the late summer of 2019,

the Tenants surrendered the premises. The Landlord inspected the residence

and concluded that it was not in good condition. The Landlord allegedly spent

$30,354.49 to repair the residence.

1
The Tenants’ briefing on appeal relies on material stricken by the trial court. Compare, e.g., Appellants’ Br. at
6 (citing Appellants’ App. Vol. 4, p. 133) with Appellants’ App. Vol. 2, p. 11 (trial court order noting that it
had stricken the same). Likewise, the Tenants’ appendices contain material stricken by the trial court. See
Appellee’s Br. at 10 n.2. The Tenants do not challenge the trial court’s decisions to strike any materials, and
we therefore disregard their improper reliance on and inclusion of stricken materials.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-940 | March 5, 2026 Page 2 of 10
[4] In January 2020, the Landlord approached RTS about recovering his repair

costs from the Tenants. James Schrier, a partner at RTS, informed the Landlord

that RTS “would not file any claim for damages to a rental property unless

[RTS] received a copy of the letter sent to [the T]enants” known as the “45[-

]day letter,” i.e., the Landlord’s itemized damages to the Tenants in accordance

with Indiana Code section 32-31-3-12. Appellants’ App. Vol. 3, p. 162. The

Landlord “told [Schrier] that he had sent [that] letter to the [T]enants” and

“subsequently provided a copy of that letter” to RTS. Id. Accordingly, and

based on a “good faith belief that there would be evidentiary support for the

factual and legal contentions raised” by the Landlord, RTS agreed to represent

the Landlord. Id. However, in fact, the Landlord “had not . . . sent any

communication to the [T]enants related to the damage to the property or their

security deposit.” Id.

[5] In the course of representing the Landlord, RTS sent collection letters to each of

the Tenants. RTS further filed a complaint on behalf of the Landlord and

against the Tenants seeking to recover the Landlord’s alleged costs. The

Tenants, in turn, counterclaimed for a violation of Indiana Code section 32-31-

3-12.

[6] In January 2021, the Landlord testified in a deposition that he had not in fact

sent the Tenants the 45-day letter. There is no dispute that the Landlord’s

January 2021 deposition testimony was when RTS learned of that fact.

Thereafter, the Landlord agreed to dismiss his claims with prejudice and to pay

damages to the Tenants. See White v. Szalasny, 191 N.E.3d 260, 262 (Ind. Ct.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-940 | March 5, 2026 Page 3 of 10
App. 2022). The trial court also ordered the Landlord to pay the Tenants’

reasonable attorneys’ fees.

[7] Following the Landlord’s deposition testimony, in February 2021 each of the

Tenants filed a complaint against RTS under the FDCPA. The Tenants each

alleged that RTS had violated their rights under the FDCPA when RTS

attempted to collect a debt on behalf of the Landlord that was in fact not owed.

The trial court later consolidated the Tenants’ cases.

[8] In February 2024, RTS moved for summary judgment and argued that it was

entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Tenants’ complaints under

numerous theories. The Tenants did not timely respond to RTS’s motion for

summary judgment despite the trial court entering three continuances to allow

the Tenants to do so. Thereafter, the trial court entered summary judgment for

RTS, specifically identifying RTS’s theory that the Tenants lacked standing as

the basis for its order.

[9] This appeal ensued.

Standard of Review
[10] The Tenants appeal the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for RTS. As

our Supreme Court has made clear:

[w]e review summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the trial court: “Drawing all reasonable inferences in
favor of . . . the non-moving parties, summary judgment is
appropriate ‘if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-940 | March 5, 2026 Page 4 of 10
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Williams v.
Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (quoting T.R. 56(C)). “A
fact is ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the
case, and an issue is ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to
resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth, or if the
undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable
inferences.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

The initial burden is on the summary-judgment movant to
“demonstrate [ ] the absence of any genuine issue of fact as to a
determinative issue,” at which point the burden shifts to the non-
movant to “come forward with contrary evidence” showing an
issue for the trier of fact. Id. at 761-62 (internal quotation marks
and substitution omitted). And “[a]lthough the non-moving party
has the burden on appeal of persuading us that the grant of
summary judgment was erroneous, we carefully assess the trial
court’s decision to ensure that he was not improperly denied his
day in court.” McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 916
N.E.2d 906, 909-10 (Ind. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014) (omission and some

alterations original to Hughley). Further, we are not bound by the trial court’s

explanation for its summary judgment ruling, and “we will affirm the trial

court’s ruling” on summary judgment “based on any theory supported by

record evidence.” Markey v. Estate of Markey, 38 N.E.3d 1003, 1006-07 (Ind.

2015).

Discussion and Decision
[11] The Tenants’ central argument on appeal is that both their complaints and the

properly designated deposition evidence demonstrated legally sufficient

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-940 | March 5, 2026 Page 5 of 10
standing under the FDCPA, and, thus, the trial court’s entry of summary

judgment on that theory is erroneous. 2 See Appellants’ Br. at 10-18. But we

review summary judgment de novo, and the fact that the trial court found one

argued theory dispositive is not binding on our Court. See Markey, 38 N.E.3d at

1006-07.

[12] RTS’s theory of standing aside, we conclude that RTS made a prima facie

showing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the merits of the

Tenants’ FDCPA claims. The Tenants’ complaints alleged that RTS violated 15

U.S.C. §§ 1692d (harassment or abuse), 1692e (false or misleading

representations), and 1692f (unfair practices). The Tenants’ factual predicates

underlying those three alleged statutory violations were the same: RTS’s

representations to the Tenants on behalf of the Landlord for the Landlord’s

purported damages to the premises as well as his claim for corresponding

attorney’s fees, which claims were in fact legally nonactionable due to the

Landlord’s noncompliance with Indiana Code section 32-31-3-12.

2
The Tenants also assert that the trial court’s order on summary judgment amounted to impermissible
burden shifting to the summary judgment nonmovants. We need not consider that proposition given our de
novo standard of review. Further, the Tenants’ argument that the trial court erred when it entered summary
judgment against tenant Lewis specifically is a nonstarter. The Tenants contend that, because RTS’s
summary judgment brief was filed in the other two case numbers but not in Lewis’s, the entry of summary
judgment against him “deprived [him] of the right to notice and the opportunity to be heard” on RTS’s
arguments. Appellants’ Br. at 18. The Tenants raise this argument for the first time on appeal, and so it is
waived. See, e.g., Salahuddin v. State, 492 N.E.2d 292, 296 (Ind. 1986). Further, tenant Lewis was at all times a
participant in the summary judgment proceedings; he had not only notice but every opportunity the other
tenants had to respond to RTS’s arguments.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-940 | March 5, 2026 Page 6 of 10
[13] RTS argued to the trial court that the designated evidence, namely, Shrier’s

affidavit, demonstrated that RTS had acted with a good-faith belief that its

representations to the Tenants had an evidentiary foundation because the

Landlord had represented to RTS, both orally and in writing, that he had

provided the Tenants with the required 45-day later, and only after the

Landlord had made those representations to RTS did RTS proceed against the

Tenants. And only after RTS had proceeded against the Tenants did RTS learn

that the Landlord had falsely asserted to RTS that he had provided the Tenants

with the 45-day letter. Thus, RTS continued, its good-faith reliance on the

Landlord’s assertions prohibits the Tenants from holding RTS liable under the

FDCPA.

[14] RTS cited legal authority in support of that position. Appellants’ App. Vol. 3,

pp. 164-65, 183-84. Among other authorities, RTS directed the trial court to the

following language from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit:

[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 11 authorizes sanctions when
attorneys advance “legal contentions” that are not “warranted by
existing law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Just because a court
ultimately disagrees with the attorney’s argument doesn’t mean it
was “[un]warranted by existing law” at the time it was made. See
Snow Ingredients, Inc. v. SnoWizard, Inc., 833 F.3d 512, 528-29 (5th
Cir. 2016); see also 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur Miller,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 1334 (4th ed. 2019). The question
instead is whether the legal contention was objectively baseless at
the time it was made, making it “legally indefensible,”
SnoWizard, 833 F.3d at 529, or “groundless in law,” Brubaker v.
City of Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363, 1385 (4th Cir. 1991).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-940 | March 5, 2026 Page 7 of 10
We have borrowed from Rule 11 before when considering
assertions of fact made in litigation under the [FDCPA]. It’s not a
violation of the [FDCPA] to file a collection lawsuit without
presently possessing means to prove a debt exists, we held,
because Rule 11 requires only that factual contentions “are likely
to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
further investigation or discovery.” Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin.
Corp., 453 F.3d 324, 333 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(b)(3)); see Lee v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone LLP, 601 F.3d 654,
658 (6th Cir. 2010) (overturning jury verdict that an attorney’s
factual assertion in a garnishment action violated the [FDCPA],
because the attorney had conducted a reasonable investigation at
the time the assertion was made).

Van Hoven v. Buckles & Buckles, P.L.C., 947 F.3d 889, 895-96 (6th Cir. 2020)

(second alteration and emphasis original to Van Hoven). RTS reiterates those

factual and legal positions on appeal as well. See Appellee’s Br. at 40-41.

[15] We need not divine the precise parameters of the FDCPA to resolve the instant

dispute. RTS designated evidence and cited legal precedent for its good-faith

theory of relief. And the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Van Hoven is at least broadly

in line with the text of the FDCPA itself. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c); 3 see also

Abdollahzadeh v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, 922 F.3d 810, 815-17 (7th Cir. 2019).

3
Section 1692k(c) provides:
A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under [the FDCPA] if the debt
collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and
resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably
adapted to avoid any such error.
See also Abdollahzadeh v. Mandarich Law Grp., LLP, 922 F.3d 810, 815-17 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming the trial
court’s entry of summary judgment for the debt collector under section 1692k(c)).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-940 | March 5, 2026 Page 8 of 10
[16] Thus, RTS’s summary judgment materials established a prima facie case on the

facts and law that it was entitled to summary judgment. The burden thus shifted

to the Tenants to establish a genuine issue of material fact, or to identify

relevant legal authority, that precluded the entry of summary judgment, but the

Tenants failed to respond to RTS’s contentions in the trial court. Further, the

Tenants also failed to address RTS’s good-faith theory in their lead brief to our

Court. Cf. Madison Cnty. Bank & Trust Co. v. Kreegar, 514 N.E.2d 279, 281 (Ind.

1987) (“While a reviewing court also accepts the facts alleged by the

nonmoving party [on summary judgment], the burden to show reversible error

on appeal is on the appellant. We indulge all reasonable presumptions in favor

of the trial court.”).

[17] However, in the Tenants’ Reply Brief, they argue that our Court has rejected

the “Good-Faith Litigation/Rule 11” theory. Reply Br. at 12 (bold font

omitted). Assuming for the sake of argument that the Tenants’ assertion in their

Reply Brief is properly before us, they are incorrect. In support of their

proposition, they cite only our Court’s opinion in Mercer Belanger Professional

Corporation v. Gaeta, but our Court’s opinion in that case says nothing about the

good-faith rule articulated in Van Hoven (or elsewhere) as being an incorrect

understanding of the FDCPA. 241 N.E.3d 1159, 1170 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024),

trans. denied. Thus, the Tenants have not demonstrated a genuine issue of

material fact, or legal authority, that precludes the entry of summary judgment

for RTS.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-940 | March 5, 2026 Page 9 of 10
[18] For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment

for RTS.

[19] Affirmed.

May, J., and Felix, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS
Duran L. Keller
Keller Law
Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Crystal G. Rowe
Jacob W. Zigenfus
Kightlinger & Gray, LLP
New Albany, Indiana
Nicholas W. Levi
Kightlinger & Gray, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-940 | March 5, 2026 Page 10 of 10