Performance Services, Inc. v. Randolph Eastern School Corporation, 211 N.E.3d 508

In 2009 Randolph Eastern School Corporation (RESC) contracted with Performance Services to build, operate, and market power from a wind turbine; Performance would pay operation costs and receive tax credits.
RESC agreed to pay Performance $77,000 every six months for access for educational use; RESC would receive a credit against each payment based on a percentage of the turbine’s net revenue and could receive excess net revenue after an operating reserve was funded.
The State Board of Accounts (SBOA) warned school corporations that investing public funds in such turbine projects exceeded statutory authority; the SBOA later audited RESC and determined the turbine project was an unauthorized investment.
RESC never made the invoiced payments and sued for a declaratory judgment seeking to void the contract as an illegal investment; Performance counterclaimed for breach and sought summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment to RESC, ruling the contract was an unauthorized investment and therefore void; the Court of Appeals reversed in part, and RESC sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which granted transfer and affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (RESC)	Defendant's Argument (Performance)	Held
Whether statutory term “invest” should be interpreted to mean committing money in hopes of a financial return	"Invest" means committing money to obtain a financial return; use ordinary dictionary meaning	Contract payments were for tangible access and educational benefits, not an investment; urged Howey securities test	Court adopts common‑language dictionary definition: to commit money in hopes of a financial return
Whether the RESC–Performance contract constituted an unauthorized investment making it void	Contract tied RESC payments to turbine net revenues and entitled RESC to share in excess—so it was an investment and unauthorized	Payments were for services/access; any revenue sharing did not make the agreement an investment	Contract was an illegal investment by a school corporation and thus void and unenforceable; summary judgment for RESC affirmed

S.E.C. v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1946) (articulates the securities‑law "investment contract" test—consulted but not adopted here)
Rainbow Realty Grp., Inc. v. Carter, 131 N.E.3d 168 (Ind. 2019) (statutory terms undefined in a statute are construed by their ordinary meaning)
Care Grp. Heart Hosp., LLC v. Sawyer, 93 N.E.3d 745 (Ind. 2018) (parties generally have broad contractual freedom, but subject to statutory limits for government entities)
Pipe Creek School Twp. v. Hawkins, 97 N.E. 936 (Ind. App. 1912) (governmental contracts made beyond statutory authority are void regardless of equities)
Lake Imaging, LLC v. Franciscan All., Inc., 182 N.E.3d 203 (Ind. 2022) (contract and statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Griffin v. Menard, Inc., 175 N.E.3d 811 (Ind. 2021) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)