James C. Purcell v. Old National Bank
2012 Ind. LEXIS 639
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Purcell sued Old National Bank after a corporate redemption in Midwest Fulfillment (2002) left Purcell with potential control contingent on financial metrics.
- Old National required a subordination agreement and provided monthly financial statements; Purcell’s security interest was subordinated to Old National’s security interests.
- Midwest Fulfillment’s 2003 balance sheets included a misleading “Mise. Billing to Customers” line item tied to invoices to a landlord; Stein admitted the figure was questionable.
- Purcell obtained a separate judgment in another case where Stein’s interrogatory responses alleged Old National instructed Stein, a claim later contradicted at Purcell’s trial.
- At Purcell’s trial, Stein and Howarth denied directing Stein to falsify the balance sheet; Purcell’s case relied on the interrogatory responses and associated testimony.
- Trial Court granted Old National a judgment on the evidence under Rule 50(A); Court of Appeals partially reversed; Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 50(A) judgment on the evidence was proper | Purcell argues Stein’s interrogatory responses provide probative evidence | Old National contends the evidence shows insufficient, non-probative support | Yes; insufficiency shown; no reasonable inference supports fraud claims |
| Whether Stein’s interrogatory responses, viewed with trial testimony, establish directed liability | Purcell contends the responses, read with trial testimony, support fraud claims | Old National argues the responses are not corroborative of directed fraud | Insufficient; qualitative analysis fails; no directed fraud |
| Whether Old National owed Purcell a duty of care | Purcell asserts potential duty as a subordinate creditor | Old National argues no duty to Purcell as a non-customer | No duty found; affirmed (negligence/constructive fraud)</}] ,{ |
Key Cases Cited
- American Optical Co. v. Weidenhamer, 457 N.E.2d 181 (Ind. 1983) (two-part sufficiency: quantitative then qualitative analysis)
- Dettman v. Sumner, 474 N.E.2d 100 (Ind.Ct.App. 1985) (two-part sufficiency analysis; probative value matters)
- Raess v. Doescher, 888 N.E.2d 790 (Ind.2008) (reasonable inferences required for sufficiency)
- Ross v. Lowe, 619 N.E.2d 911 (Ind.1993) (any probative evidence defeats judgment on the evidence)
- Teitge v. Remy Constr. Co. Inc., 526 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind.App.Ct. 1988) (judgment on the evidence proper when no reasonable inference supports plaintiff)
- Purcell v. Old Nat’l Bank, 953 N.E.2d 527 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011) (appeals on duty and evidentiary issues in related litigation)
- Neubacher v. Indianapolis Union Ry. Co., 33 N.E. 798 (Ind.1893) (jury function preserved; weighing against court’s judgment)