Terry Huber v. Roger Hamilton
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 425
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Two parties signed a land contract for commercial real estate in Crawfordsville, Indiana; the contract required monthly payments and a balloon payment at the end of the term.
- As the balloon payment neared in 2010, Huber sought to extend the due date; the parties allegedly agreed to extend for a year, with a disputed understanding of how the extra $300 per month would be applied.
- The extension was oral, and the trial court could not determine its terms; the court held the oral modification unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
- Huber continued making the regular payments plus $300 monthly; in 2013 Hamilton demanded payoff and sought foreclosure.
- The trial court found the oral extension unenforceable, Huber in default on the written contract, and awarded attorney’s fees; on appeal, the Statute of Frauds and promissory estoppel arguments were reviewed de novo.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the oral modification unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and that the additional payments reduced principal, with foreclosure as the appropriate remedy under the written contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of oral extension under Statute of Frauds | Huber argues promissory estoppel removes the extension from the Statute. | Hamilton contends the extension must be in writing under the Statute and no writing exists. | Oral modification unenforceable; Statute controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skendzel v. Marshall, 301 N.E.2d 646 (Ind. 1973) (land-contracts akin to mortgages; writing required for modification)
- Brown v. Branch, 758 N.E.2d 51 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (writing required for conveyance of land and contract modifications)
- Johnson v. Sprague, 614 N.E.2d 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (enforceable contract for sale of land must be in writing and describe land and promises)
- Coca-Cola Co. v. Babyback’s Int’l, Inc., 841 N.E.2d 557 (Ind. 2006) (statute of frauds purposes; unwritten claims risk perjury; promissory estoppel must overcome artifacts of SOF)
- Maglaris v. Claude Neon Fed. Co., 198 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. 1935) (modification of contract generally required to be in writing when SOF applies)
- Columbus Trade Exch., Inc. v. AMCA Int’l Corp., 763 F. Supp. 946 (S.D. Ohio 1991) (estoppel and SOF interplay; unwritten terms may not override written agreement)