Ed Wayt and Tex A. Wayt v. Phyllis I. Maschino (mem. dec.), 36A05-1702-CC-335

Background

Maschino (owner of Blish Street property) financed construction and equipment for a blasting business run by her son-in-law Ed and his wife Tex Wayt ("The Blast Shop"); parties had no written agreement and were family.
Maschino made downpayment and took loans ($27,000 down, $80,000 and $120,000, plus guaranty of $50,000) and also made numerous loan payments and cash advances over years; Wayts made payments totaling $201,000 by 2012.
Without Maschino’s consent the Wayts attempted to sell equipment to Crane Hill/Marshall Royalty for $70,000; Maschino locked them out and retained the equipment.
Competing lawsuits ensued (claims of conversion, replevin, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract). Summary judgment resolved some claims between Maschino and Royalty; issues between Maschino and the Wayts proceeded to bench trial.
After bench trial the trial court found Maschino had loaned $354,000, the Wayts had repaid $201,000, leaving $153,000 owed; the court offset $70,000 (value of equipment Maschino retained) and entered judgment for Maschino for $83,000 and ordered return of certain personal property.
On appeal the Wayts challenged claims: that judgment was on claims not pled, statute of frauds, characterization of certain funds (guaranteed line of credit), amount of additional loans, and return/award of personal property. Court affirmed in part and remanded to clarify property return.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Maschino)	Defendant's Argument (Wayts)	Held
Whether trial court could award loan repayment beyond the two large loans specified in complaint	Complaint alleged loans from 1999–2012; asserted breach for roughly $200,000 and thus included various payments/advances	Complaint only referred to $80k and $120k; other payments were beyond pleadings	Court held complaint put Wayts on notice that loans from 1999–2012 were at issue; judgment allowed as pled
Whether statute of frauds bars enforcement (one-year clause)	Agreement was oral but not subject to statute because it was possible to perform within one year; statute was not pled as affirmative defense	Oral agreement lacked repayment term and thus falls within one-year writing requirement	Issue waived (not pled); on merits court held expectation of >1 year insufficient to invoke statute of frauds
Whether $50,000 guaranty/line of credit was a loan by Maschino to Wayts	Maschino guaranteed/refinanced into her name and funds were used to pay operating expenses from Tex’s account, supporting characterization as funds to Wayts	Wayts: it was a revolving line of credit for the business, not a loan by Maschino; no proof Maschino was called as guarantor or amounts used	Court found evidence supported treating the funds as advances/loans to Wayts and included them in the accounting
Whether trial court miscalculated or lacked evidence for $77,000 in additional loans/advances	Maschino produced extensive financial records documenting numerous payments and cash loans exceeding $77,000; court credited part of that evidence	Wayts argued Maschino’s specified amounts didn’t equal $77,000 and some loans were to the corporate entity, not them personally	Court affirmed that $77,000 finding was within the evidence and that corporate-entity argument was waived and inadequately developed on appeal
Whether trial court erred by ordering return of only three personal-property items	Maschino offered to return items; court ordered return of three items; may have considered other items as an implicit offset	Wayts sought return of many additional items; argued court intended full return	Court found it likely the omission was oversight; remanded to clarify ownership/return of remaining personal property

Key Cases Cited

Mysliwy v. Mysliwy, 953 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (two-tiered clear-error review for findings and judgment)
Bowyer v. Ind. Dep't of Natural Res., 944 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standards for clearly erroneous findings and improper legal standards)
Carmer v. Carmer, 45 N.E.3d 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (role and purpose of special findings and conclusions under T.R. 52(A))
Tobin v. Ruman, 819 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (narrow application of one-year clause of statute of frauds)
Jernas v. Gumz, 53 N.E.3d 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (statute of frauds is an affirmative defense that must be pled)