Craig Neibert v. Jody A. Perdomo
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 154
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Neibert and Perdomo cohabited for ~10 years; they renovated Perdomo’s late father’s house ("Father’s House") and built a new home on family land ("New House").
- Perdomo paid most materials; Neibert provided the majority of labor (renovation, excavation, construction). No written contract; Neibert claims he expected joint ownership; he did not receive monetary payment.
- After the couple split in 2011, Neibert sued for implied contract and unjust enrichment (seeking restitution for labor, materials, equipment) and replevin for personal property; Perdomo counterclaimed for unjust enrichment (rent-free occupancy).
- At a bench trial, Neibert rested but reserved examining Perdomo until her case; the court then entertained Perdomo’s Trial Rule 41(B) motion for involuntary dismissal and later granted it in an interlocutory order, dismissing Neibert’s implied contract and unjust enrichment claims.
- The trial court also excluded the plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 (expert Roger Bruce’s written valuation) though it qualified Bruce as an expert and heard his testimony; the court did not issue detailed findings and did not address replevin in the interlocutory order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting involuntary dismissal under T.R. 41(B) | Neibert: his evidence (labor, materials, expectation of ownership, value increases, expert testimony) was uncontroverted and sufficient to survive dismissal | Perdomo: plaintiff had rested, reserved testimony, and failed to present evidence establishing contractual or unjust enrichment claims | Reversed: uncontroverted evidence supported unjust enrichment and implied contract; dismissal was clear error; remand for trial on merits |
| Whether services were gifts v. compensable benefit (elements of unjust enrichment/implied contract) | Neibert: did not intend services as gift; expected proprietary interest; conferred measurable benefit | Perdomo: prior reference to a "gift" (Florida work) shows gratuitous intent; no express request/payment agreement | Held for Neibert: record showed expectation of compensation/ownership and acceptance of services; elements for unjust enrichment and implied contract met |
| Admissibility of expert’s written report (Exhibit 15) | Neibert: Bruce was qualified and testified to methodology and sources; report relied on materials reasonably used by experts; should have been admitted and weighed | Perdomo: Bruce didn’t personally inspect the work and delegated report compilation; inability to cross-examine the data-entry preparer undermined reliability | Court abused discretion in excluding the report: Bruce was qualified, used customary methods and data, and the written estimate should have been admitted and weighed |
| Whether interlocutory order required special findings or addressed replevin | Neibert: trial court failed to issue detailed findings and omitted ruling on replevin | Perdomo: not argued as dispositive here | Court did not address these further; reversal on dismissal dispositive — replevin admitted on remand per appellee concession |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. 2012) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Bright v. Kuehl, 650 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (unjust enrichment/implied contract principles and limits on gifts)
- Turner v. Freed, 792 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (palimony/cohabitant recovery under unjust enrichment for services during cohabitation)
- In re M.D., 906 N.E.2d 931 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review for Trial Rule 41(B) rulings)
- Wright v. Miller, 989 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2013) (preference for deciding disputes on merits; appellate review standards)
- Estate of Borgwald v. Old Nat'l Bank, 12 N.E.3d 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for expert admissibility)