When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party with every reasonable inference construed in the non-movant's favor. Thornton v. State , 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015). We review a trial court's grant or denial of a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion de novo.Id.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it. Thornton v. State, 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015). "When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must 'view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the non-movant's favor.'"
[7] "Since a 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, it presents a legal question that we review de novo." Ward v. Carter, 90 N.E.3d 660, 662 (Ind. 2018) (citing Thornton v. State, 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015)). "We may affirm a dismissal under 12(B)(6) 'if it is sustainable on any basis in the record.'"
Accordingly, the Court will affirm the Indiana Board's final determination in this case only if Gilday's Form 131s state a set of facts, which, if true, clearly demonstrate that it was not entitled to the relief requested under any theory or basis found on the face of the Form 131s. See Thornton v. State, 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015) (explaining that a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal cannot be affirmed " ‘unless it is apparent that the facts alleged in the challenged pleading are incapable of supporting relief under any set of circumstances’ ") (citation omitted). Gilday's Form 131s alleged that 1) the subject property was entitled to Homestead Deductions during the years at issue, 2) the Homestead Deductions were "inexplicably and erroneously removed[,]" 3) Gilday was the "taxpayer" that had paid the overstated property taxes, and 4) Gilday had "the right to pursue [a] refund of those taxes due to the erroneous exclusion" of the Homestead Deductions.
In other words, Indiana courts conduct "an inquiry into 'the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the person who performed it.'" Thornton v. State, 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Mendenhall v. City of Indianapolis, 717 N.E.2d 1218, 1226 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)). "Absolute judicial immunity therefore extends to persons performing tasks so integral or intertwined with the judicial process that they are considered an arm of the judicial officer who is immune."
A 12(B)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim, not the facts supporting it. Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. , 87 N.E.3d 462, 466 (Ind. 2017) (citing Thornton v. State , 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015) ). Dismissal under 12(B)(6) is not proper "unless it appears to a certainty on the face of the complaint that the complaining party is not entitled to any relief." Id.
It is well settled that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(B)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim, not the facts supporting it." Bellwether Props., LLC v. Duke Energy Ind., Inc. , 87 N.E.3d 462, 466 (Ind. 2017) (cleaned up) (quoting Thornton v. State , 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015) ). The dispute here turns on the legal sufficiency of the HOA's claims against the Matthews Defendants for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and negligence.
When ruling on such a motion, the court must "view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the non-movant's favor." Thornton v. State , 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015) (citation omitted). Because such a motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, it presents a legal question that is reviewed de novo on appeal.
The Hospital challenges the legal sufficiency of Dr. Sawyer's breach-of-contract claim. SeeThornton v. State , 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015). The claim's legal sufficiency depends on our interpretation of the parties' contract.
Since a 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, it presents a legal question that we review de novo. Thornton v. State, 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015). We may affirm a dismissal under 12(B)(6) "if it is sustainable on any basis in the record."