Dennis Larson, Rose Real Estate, Inc., and Diversified Commercial Real Estate v. Peter N. Karagan
979 N.E.2d 655
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Karagan sued Larson entities for breach of oral commissions contract and for conversion after leaving in 2007 without final commissions.
- There was no written employment agreement; parties verbally set 75% to Karagan and 25% to Larson on commissions Karagan procured.
- Karagan obtained summary judgment; Larson did not respond; two requests for admission were deemed admitted establishing entitlement to commissions.
- Damages hearing led to treble damages under the criminal conversion statute and an award of $177,612.50 plus future commissions; prejudgment interest was denied.
- Larson moved to withdraw one admission; the trial court granted withdrawal to some extent; on appeal, treble damages were affirmed and prejudgment interest was remanded for calculation.
- Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Karagan in part, reversed in part, and remanded for prejudgment interest calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on breach of contract was proper | Karagan: admissions show no genuine dispute over contract terms. | Larson: factual disputes exist about payment timing. | Summary judgment proper; no genuine issue as to contract interpretation. |
| Whether there was evidence of criminal intent to support treble damages | Karagan: evidence shows Larson knew control was unauthorized. | Larson: insufficient proof of mens rea. | Treble damages affirmed; sufficient evidence of intentional/knowing conduct. |
| Whether withdrawal of admissions was proper | Karagan: withdrawal would subserve merits and prejudice minimal. | Larson: withdrawal could prejudice. | Court allowed withdrawal in discretion; no abuse of discretion; admissions remained effective for other issues. |
| Whether prejudgment interest should have been awarded | Karagan: amounts were ascertainable; interest appropriate and may be trebled. | Larson: damages not sufficiently fixed to award prejudgment interest. | Remand for calculation of prejudgment interest; court should have awarded interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardy v. Hardy, 963 N.E.2d 470 (Ind. 2012) (summary judgment standard mirrors trial court; day in court protections)
- Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (unopposed summary judgment not guaranteed; merits-based)
- City of Muncie v. Peters, 709 N.E.2d 50 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (admissions under T.R. 36 deemed conclusive unless withdrawal permitted)
- White v. Indiana Realty Associates II, 555 N.E.2d 454 (Ind. 1990) (rare case where criminal intent shown via summary judgment in civil action)
- Kopka, Landau & Pinkus v. Hansen, 874 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (ascertainable damages support prejudgment interest remand)
- Noble Romans, Inc. v. Ward, 760 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (prejudgment interest when amounts stipulated or readily ascertainable)
- Midland-Guardian Co. v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 499 N.E.2d 792 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (treble damages context for civil conversion; mens rea considerations)