U.S. Research Consultants, Inc. v. The County of Lake, Indiana Board of Commissioners of the County of Lake, Indiana, in their official capacities and the Lake County Treasurer
89 N.E.3d 1076
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- USRC contracted (2005–2006) with Lake County to provide collection services for delinquent real property taxes; commission set at 20% (pre-6/4/2003) and 15% (after).
- Treasurer periodically assigned specific cases (primarily "prior year" delinquent taxes) to USRC; USRC was to send collection letters and claim commissions after taxes were paid to the County.
- County terminated the contract in 2006. USRC later sued (2008) for unpaid commissions (initially large sum; later disputes focused on amounts in Exhibit 4).
- Trial court originally granted summary judgment to USRC; this court reversed in Lake County I, holding that USRC was only entitled to commissions on cases the Treasurer assigned and remanding for further proceedings.
- On remand the County moved for summary judgment, arguing USRC failed to timely file claims (or pleaded laches); trial court granted County summary judgment based on an interpretation that USRC had to file claims "when" monies were paid.
- USRC appealed; this opinion reverses that grant and remands for determination whether USRC performed and, if so, the commissions owed, and holds prejudgment interest may be awarded if amounts are ascertainable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lake County I requires USRC to prove it filed claims for commissions within a particular time after taxes were paid | Lake County I did not set a timing requirement; USRC can submit claims during litigation | Lake County I and law-of-the-case require USRC to file claims "when" delinquent monies were paid (i.e., promptly) | Lake County I addressed which cases USRC could collect on, not a timing rule; no specific time requirement imposed |
| Whether County can assert laches or other affirmative defenses for alleged delay in filing claims | County waived laches by failing to timely plead it and by denial of motions to amend; Lake County I implicitly affirmed those denials | Timeliness is a contractual duty and not merely an affirmative defense; County may rely on it | Laches is an affirmative defense that was not preserved; County now foreclosed from asserting laches on remand |
| Whether the Contract’s "expeditious" performance clause requires USRC to promptly bill/ file claims | Billing is administrative; performance means collection work, not immediate billing | The clause requires expeditious filing of claims as part of performance | Filing/billing is administrative, not an essential element of performance; submitting claims during litigation is sufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Availability of prejudgment interest on any awarded commissions | Prejudgment interest appropriate because commissions, if owed, are a simple mathematical calculation per contract rates | Amounts are disputed; where damages are not ascertainable, prejudgment interest is inappropriate | If USRC proves entitlement to particular commissions, amounts are ascertainable and prejudgment interest is proper, computed from when each commission was demandable or ascertainable |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (standard of review and summary judgment principles)
- Dutchmen Mfg., Inc. v. Reynolds, 891 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (law-of-the-case and dicta principles)
- Song v. Iatarola, 76 N.E.3d 926 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (prejudgment interest as compensation for lost use of money)
- Kopka, Landau & Pinkus v. Hansen, 874 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (prejudgment interest warranted where contract makes claim ascertainable)
- Town of New Ross v. Ferretti, 815 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (damages must be complete and ascertainable for prejudgment interest)