Community Park Investments, Inc. v. Jamie Guess and Barry Lewis, Jr. (mem. dec.)
46A05-1601-PL-224
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- CPI (owned by Jacob Pasternac) operated a mobile-home park and entered a month-to-month lease with Tenants (Guess and Lewis) on June 7, 2014.
- Tenants signed a bill of sale and a promissory note for purchase of a used mobile home for $9,000; the bill of sale stated it was "Not Valid Unless Signed and Accepted by an Officer of the Company or an Authorized Agent."
- Pasternac (not signing on CPI’s behalf) took Tenants to the bank; Tenants paid $5,000 in cash to Pasternac; no receipt was provided.
- Tenants paid $550/month (combined lot rent and note interest) through March 2015; CPI later demanded the $9,000 note balance and then served an eviction notice; Tenants stopped paying after the notice and moved out in July 2015.
- CPI sued for eviction and damages (including $9,000 on the promissory note); Tenants counterclaimed, arguing CPI never signed the bill of sale and did not have title; the trial court found the agreement invalid and awarded nothing to CPI.
- CPI appealed, arguing the bill of sale and promissory note were enforceable; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mobile-home sale contract and promissory note were enforceable | CPI: documents constitute a binding sale/loan for $9,000 | Tenants: bill of sale unsigned by CPI/authorized agent and title not in CPI, so agreement is invalid | Court: integrated agreement invalid because bill of sale required seller/agent signature; unenforceable |
| Whether the unpaid promissory note could be enforced separately from bill of sale | CPI: note and bill of sale are enforceable separately | Tenants: note incorporated into bill of sale and contingent on seller’s acceptance/signature | Court: note and bill of sale are an integrated contract; enforceability depends on required signature, so note unenforceable |
| Burden where appellee fails to file brief on appeal | CPI: N/A (appellant) | Tenants did not file appellee brief; rule allows reversal on prima facie error | Court: applied prima facie-error standard but found no reversible error; affirmed |
| Standard of review for trial court findings | CPI: challenges findings as erroneous | Tenants: findings support judgment | Court: review findings for clear error; findings supported by record and controlling contract language |
Key Cases Cited
- Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. 2008) (appellate consequence when appellee fails to file brief; prima facie-error rule)
- Geico Ins. Co. v. Graham, 14 N.E.3d 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellant obligation and appellee brief discussion under prima facie-error rule)
- Eisenhut v. Eisenhut, 994 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for reviewing findings of fact and general-judgment issues)
- Jernas v. Gumz, 53 N.E.3d 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (existence of a valid contract is a question of law)
- Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Heck, 873 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (contract validity generally not dependent on signature unless made a condition)
- Barker v. Price, 48 N.E.3d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (integrated agreement concept and judge’s role in deciding integration)