Carol Sparks Drake v. Thomas A. Dickey, Craig Anderson, Charles E. Podell, and Duke Realty Corporation
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 608
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Drake, an attorney, joined Parr Richey in 1983 and was a partner from 1985 to 2006.
- Duke Realty, a Parr Richey client, planned the Anson Project near Drake’s property and Duke Realty offered to buy it, which Drake declined.
- Parr Richey suspended representation of Duke Realty, then resumed after Drake and Duke Realty signed a confidential Land Use Agreement in August 2004; Parr Richey then represented Duke Realty on the Anson Project in 2005.
- Drake withdrew a Lebanon County Plan Commission application after a Duke Realty representative threatened Parr Richey via Drake’s participation, asserting consequences if she proceeded.
- On November 7, 2006, Duke Realty threatened Parr Richey that Drake’s potential intervention would end Parr Richey’s relationship with Duke Realty, leading to Drake’s eventual removal from the partnership on December 9, 2006.
- Drake sued Duke Realty in August 2009 for tortious interference with her partnership; the trial court granted summary judgment for Duke Realty in January 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intentional inducement of breach | Duke Realty intended to cause Parr Richey to terminate Drake. | Duke Realty did not intend to cause Drake’s removal; actions sought a resolution of a dispute. | Genuine issue of material fact as to intent. |
| Justification for interference | Duke Realty’s threats were unjustified and not a legitimate business purpose. | Duke Realty had a legitimate interest in protecting conflicts of interest and terminating its relationship. | Issues for trial regarding justification remain; summary judgment reversed on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bochnowski v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 571 N.E.2d 282 (Ind. 1991) (interfering with an employment/contract relationship can be tortious even when termination is at-will)
- Levee v. Beeching, 729 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (tortious interference requires showing that interference substantially impairs contract execution)
- Gatto v. St. Richard School, Inc., 774 N.E.2d 914 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (summary judgment on contract claim; tortious interference depends on contract breach)
- Winkler v. V.G. Reed & Sons, Inc., 638 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. 1994) (established elements of tortious interference with a contractual relationship)
- Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (summary-judgment standard and burden-shifting framework in Indiana)