Coldwell Banker Roth Wehrly Graber v. Laub Bros. Oil Co.
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1215
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Coldwell filed suit Jan 23, 2008 seeking a 6% commission or at least $102,000 from Laub Brothers Oil for a sale to S&S Oil.
- Listing Contract (May 12, 2004) gave Coldwell exclusive right to sell seven Laub properties, with term through May 12, 2005 and a 360-day commission-protection window.
- Beck and Curtner facilitated information exchange with S&S Oil via Kohart, with Beck relaying property details and prices.
- S&S Oil and Laub entered into a purchase agreement for several listed properties within the 360-day window after the Listing Contract expired.
- Jury trial in Sept 2009 resulted in Coldwell obtaining $102,000; post-trial motions led to an infamous February 11, 2010 order granting a new trial on the court’s own motion for the definition of “had negotiations.”
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted an extension of time for ruling on the motion to correct error, and the trial court entered a forty-three page order construing “negotiations” and ordering a new trial; Coldwell and the Defendants cross-appealed on multiple issues.
- The cases then proceeded on appeal to address summary judgment, judgment on the evidence, and the propriety and jurisdiction of the court’s sua sponte corrective-order and new-trial grant; the appellate court affirmed the new-trial order and related rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in denying summary judgment. | Laub argued no negotiations; Coldwell argued facts show negotiations. | Laub contends no negotiations occurred; Coldwell asserts ambiguous term. | No error; material facts supported a jury question on negotiations. |
| Whether the court erred in denying judgment on the evidence. | There was sufficient evidence raising genuine issues about negotiations. | Insufficient evidence of negotiations to support Coldwell’s claim. | No error; evidence supported viewing issues in Coldwell’s favor. |
| Whether the court properly granted its own motion to correct error and ordered a new trial. | Court acted to correct error where the term’s meaning needed proper instruction. | Court improperly relied on Barrick Realty Co. and overstepped. | Affirmed; new trial ordered due to need for proper jury instruction on negotiations. |
| Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant its own motion to correct error. | Rule 53.3(D) extensions suspend jurisdiction; the order was valid. | Suspension language should not terminate jurisdiction; order void ab initio. | Affirmed; court had jurisdiction given the Supreme Court extension order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrick Realty Co. v. Bogan, 422 N.E.2d 1306 (Ind.Ct.App. 1981) (negotiations may require more than discussions to justify a broker’s commission)
- First Fed. Sav. Bank of Ind. v. Galvin, 616 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993) (whether broker engaged in negotiations is a jury question)
- Munson v. Furrer, 53 N.W.2d 699 (Wis. 1952) (broker’s efforts to interest a prospect—whether they reach likely-purchaser stage)
- Lake Mortgage Co., Inc. v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 262 Ind. 601 (1975) (trial court may grant relief on its own motion but must support with facts)
- Holiday Park Realty Corp. v. Gateway Corp., 259 Ind. 477 (1955) (discusses motion-to-correct-error timing and notice considerations)
- Haggard v. Hayden, 494 N.E.2d 338 (Ind.Ct.App. 1986) (concerns motion-to-correct-error procedures and statements of facts)
- Walker v. Pullen, 943 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 2011) (standard of review for abuse of discretion in new-trial decisions)