Background
Luanne Mona Broley agreed to sell a residential property to Rhonda Jean Riordon for $1.5 million. Three days before closing, Riordon said she could not obtain financing and did not close. Broley later sold the property for $1.1 million and sued Riordon for the $400,000 difference.
Broley served a summary judgment motion in July 2024. Riordon did not comply with the resulting timetable for responding materials, including after receiving an extension. The motion was first adjourned in June 2025 on strict terms: the rescheduled September hearing was peremptory against Riordon, she was required to deliver her materials by July 7, and she had to pay $4,000 in thrown-away costs by July 16. She did neither, and sought another adjournment two days before the peremptory hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed Riordon’s appeal. It held that the motion judge’s refusal to grant a further adjournment was a discretionary decision entitled to deference and disclosed no denial of procedural fairness or access to justice.
The court emphasized that summary judgment is intended to provide an economical and expeditious resolution of cases not requiring trial. Riordon had repeatedly failed to comply with court-ordered timetables, had already received an adjournment on strict terms, and sought another last-minute postponement without having delivered responding materials or paid the ordered costs. On that record, exceptional circumstances would have been needed to justify another adjournment, and none existed.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking an adjournment of a peremptory summary judgment motion faces a high bar, particularly after prior non-compliance.
- Courts may refuse further indulgences where a litigant disregards timetables and costs orders.
- Enforcing court orders and avoiding last-minute adjournments are integral to procedural fairness and access to justice for both parties.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that access to justice does not entitle a party to repeated postponements. Summary judgment procedures depend on compliance with scheduling orders, and courts may protect the opposing party and the administration of justice by enforcing those orders.
The court fixed appeal costs at $11,501.59 on a partial-indemnity basis, payable forthwith, in addition to the earlier $4,000 costs order.