Fischer v. Heymann, 943 N.E.2d 896

Heymanns contracted to buy Fischer's condo for $315,000; $5,000 earnest money paid.
An inspection report labeled several electrical findings as major concerns; the report defined concerns and major concerns.
Heymanns demanded Fischer remedy the electrical issues by a stated deadline and reserved the right to re-inspect.
Fischer's electrician fixed the problem on Feb. 20; Heymanns later released from the contract and Fischer sued for damages and fees.
Trial court found no objectively reasonable basis to classify the defects as major defects and voided the contract; court ordered return of earnest money and addressed fees; on appeal Fischer challenges these rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether electrical issues were major defects under the contract	Heymanns claim major defects existed	Fischer argues defects were minor repairs	No; not objectively reasonable to deem major defects
Whether Heymanns' belief was objectively reasonable	Belief grounded in inspector's Major Concerns	Belief was not objectively reasonable	Not objectively reasonable; contract remained intact
Effect of failure to timely respond to repair request	Failure to respond timely voided the agreement	Timing errors invalidated the agreement	Remand to determine damages; contract void not supported by findings
Remand and allocation of fees/damages	Heymanns owe Fischer damages and fees	Fischer should recover costs if prevailing	Remand for damages, attorney’s fees, and third-party indemnity issues

Walton v. Claybridge H.O.A., Inc., 825 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (attorney’s fees allowed to prevailing party; public policy considerations)
Angelone v. Chang, 761 N.E.2d 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (two-step standard of review for trial-rule-52 findings)
Four Seasons Mfg., Inc. v. 1001 Coliseum, LLC, 870 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (contract interpretation and harmonization of terms)