943 N.E.2d 816
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Likenses list their Backwater Road home for sale with Leiter (their agent); Stump, the Gredys’ buyer’s agent, directly contacted the Likenses to encourage acceptance of the Gredys’ offer.
- Purchase Agreement (Feb. 28, 2008) provided for the Gredys to buy at $325,000 with possession and rent terms; closing was to occur by Sept. 30, 2008.
- Stump communicated directly with the Likenses and advised them the Gredys were financially capable and a good deal, including assurances about a cash closing.
- The Gredys’ bank letter of guarantee of funds was later found fraudulent; closing never occurred, and the Likenses sued the Gredys, Stump, and Prickett’s for fraud and negligence.
- Indiana Code chapter 25-34.1-10 governs agency relationships, defining client, licensee, duties, and limitations; the trial court granted summary judgment for Stump and Prickett’s on the negligence claim, and the Likenses appeal only that ruling.
- The court ultimately held that Stump owed no duty to the Likenses under the statute and, even if a common-law duty existed, Section 15 of the statute superseded such duties; the limited-agency provisions also negate dual-agent liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Stump owe a duty to the Likenses under Indiana law? | Likenses contend Stump violated duties by direct contact and advice. | Stump, as the buyers’ agent, owed no duty to sellers under statute. | No duty under Indiana Code 25-34.1-10; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether a separate common-law duty exists despite the statute? | Webb factors show potential common-law duty. | Statute preempts conflicting common-law duties. | Statute supersedes any conflicting common-law duties. |
| Whether dual/limited agency affects Stump’s duty to the Likenses? | Stump acted as dual agent; thus duties to Likenses exist. | Limited agency requires written consent; none shown. | No evidence of written consent; limited-agency provisions support no duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment standard of review; deference to trial court)
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind.1991) (three-factor test for duty in common law agency)