Robin King v. Rebecca Conley
87 N.E.3d 1146
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- King (owner) leased a house to Conley (tenant) on Dec 16, 2015 and separately granted Conley an exclusive, irrevocable option to purchase the property in exchange for $13,000 (non‑refundable). Lease term Dec 19, 2015–Dec 18, 2016.
- Lease prohibited alterations without landlord’s written consent and allowed landlord reasonable inspections; both Lease and Option allowed termination for tenant default and provided for attorney fees.
- In March 2016 Conley notified King of a sump pump leak, gave access codes, later changed the front‑door lock after concerns about King’s conduct, and painted most ground‑level interior walls.
- Conley exercised the option by letter on March 25, 2016. King responded March 30 asserting lease violations (painting, replaced locks, denying access) and demanded cure within 15 days; King later filed for eviction and sought to avoid the option.
- Trial court found Conley exercised the option before any curative notice produced an Event of Default, the painting and lock change were not material breaches, denied eviction, ordered specific performance (closing), and awarded attorney fees. King appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (King) | Defendant's Argument (Conley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court clearly erred in denying eviction and awarding specific performance | Conley breached Lease (painted, changed locks, denied access); King served notice and Conley failed to cure, creating an Event of Default allowing termination of the Option | Conley exercised the Option before any valid notice/cure period expired; any breaches were not material and Conley was in substantial compliance | Affirmed: court’s findings supported that Conley exercised before a curable default, painting/lock change were not material breaches, so specific performance granted |
| Whether painting and lock change constituted a material breach justifying forfeiture of option | Such acts violated Lease’s alteration and access clauses and justified termination | Acts were minor (not substantial alterations), King initially acquiesced to painting and was not meaningfully deprived; any ambiguity construed against drafter (King) | Affirmed: painting and lock change were not material under Restatement factors; forfeiture disfavored |
| Whether notice/cure requirements of Lease were satisfied before Option was terminated | King argues notice (Mar 30) created uncured default | Conley exercised Option on Mar 25, before any written notice and cure period ran | Affirmed: option exercise preceded required notice/cure, so Option remained valid |
| Whether appellate fees are awardable | King did not contest fee provision | Conley seeks appellate fees under contractual fee clauses | Remanded: contractual fee provisions permit appellate fees; trial court to determine reasonable appellate attorney fees |
Key Cases Cited
- International Bus. Machines Corp. v. 51 N.E.3d 150 (Ind. 2016) (standard of review for findings and conclusions)
- Pinkowski v. Calumet Twp. of Lake Cty. 852 N.E.2d 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (option enforceability; substantial performance for specific performance)
- Fetz v. Phillips 591 N.E.2d 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (notice requirement before landlord can cancel option under lease)
- Page Two, Inc. v. P.C. Mgmt., Inc. 517 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (forfeiture enforced only for material breach)
- Frazier v. Mellowitz 804 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (factors for materiality of breach from Restatement)
- Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P. v. Whiteman 802 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. 2004) (ambiguities construed against drafter)
- Kishpaugh v. Odegard 17 N.E.3d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (contractual attorney‑fee clauses permit appellate fees)