Ross Nifong d/b/a Ross Nifong Farms and Ross Nifong Farms, LLC v. Joseph R. Brown d/b/a Joe Brown Drilling Contractor (mem. dec.)
50A04-1609-CC-2288
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 7, 2017Background
- In 2011 Chad (tenant) hired well driller Joe Brown to drill and equip an irrigation well on land owned by Ross Nifong (lessor); Brown had no written contract with Nifong and dealt orally with Chad.
- Brown drilled, installed a pump, and an engineer-approved flow test initially showed ~825 gpm tapering to 775 gpm; later independent tests showed lower flows.
- Brown invoiced $29,800; after nonpayment for years, Brown removed his pump in 2014 (employees accidentally removed a gearhead installed earlier by a third driller, Ousley).
- Litigation: Brown sued Nifong (breach of contract, quantum meruit); Nifong counterclaimed for trespass and criminal conversion concerning removed equipment.
- Trial court entered findings and awarded Brown judgment of $36,055.74 (includes prejudgment interest). Nifong appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (Nifong) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of condition precedent to payment | No condition precedent; Brown performed per oral agreement | Payment conditioned on achieving an 800 gpm well before obligation to pay | No condition precedent; court credited Brown’s testimony and found performance met contract terms |
| Trespass (possession of property) | N/A (Brown argued no trespass) | Nifong: as owner, he could sue for trespass for interference with irrigation system | Held for Brown: Chad (tenant) had possessory interest; Nifong lacked immediate possessory control and cannot maintain trespass claim |
| Criminal conversion (removal of Ousley gearhead) | Brown: removal was accidental and unintentional; returned gearhead/repaired | Nifong: Brown knowingly/unauthorizedly took gearhead | Held for Brown: Nifong failed to prove requisite criminal intent by preponderance of evidence |
| Basis of recovery (quantum meruit / account stated / breach) | Recovery should rest on contract; quantum meruit inappropriate when an express contract exists | Argued trial court relied on quantum meruit or account stated instead of contract | Court affirmed judgment on contract breach (quantum meruit precluded by existence of oral contract); account stated not appropriate for single transaction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brazier v. Maple Lane Apartments I, LLC, 45 N.E.3d 442 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review when trial court issues findings under T.R. 52)
- Worrell v. WLT Corp., 653 N.E.2d 1054 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (definition of breach as failure to perform agreed obligations)
- Aquasource, Inc. v. Wind Dance Farm, Inc., 833 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (definition and effect of condition precedent in contract law)
- Sand Creek Country Club, Ltd. v. CSO Architects, Inc., 582 N.E.2d 872 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (conditions precedent are disfavored and must be explicit)
- Aberdeen Apartments v. Cary Campbell Realty Alliance, Inc., 820 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (trespass requires possessory interest; landlord/tenant possession distinctions)
- French-Tex Cleaners, Inc. v. Cafaro Co., 893 N.E.2d 1156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (civil recovery for criminal conversion requires proof of criminal mens rea by preponderance)
- Troutwine Estates Dev. Co., LLC v. Comsub Design & Eng’g, Inc., 854 N.E.2d 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (quantum meruit unavailable where an express contract exists)
- Jackson v. Trancik, 953 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (definition and operation of account stated)