*1 is un- language of the instrument If the CRUTCHER, parties is intent of the
ambiguous the Charles Crutcher A four corners ... from its and the Indiana Civil Commis determined sion, ambiguous only Appellants-Defendants, if a reason- contract suscepti- its terms person could find able interpretation. one more than ble to and Patricia M. A. DABIS Id. at 508. Turnpaugh, Dabis, Appellees-Plaintiffs. plain terms here are and The release’s parties intend- unambiguous as to who the provides release. It ed to fully entered into to and This release is arising all matter finally compromise out the above occurrence.... read this entire document
I/We have contained; herein everything
understand every re- am/are satisfied
and I/We accept money said sum of
spect to doing knowledge that so I/We
full up rights all giving
am/are may have I/we have or
claims that persons consequence against all accident, damage. injuries
said supplied)
(R. 37-38). language which releases unambiguous, persons”
“all is clear Bar, d/b/a Harvester
and included Hansen assert- person against whom Smith was consequence of said acci-
ing a claim “in
dent.”
RUCKER, J., concurs result. sepa- concurs result with
rate
CHEZEM, Judge, concurring in result. language
I concur in result. It clear.
release executed Smith was “giving provided that Smith was
expressly persons in
up all ... accident, injuries and
consequence of said reason I concur in re-
damage.” For this
sult. *2 1985, 5, July
On the Crutchers filed complaint of discrimination with the ICRC. respond did not Dabises to the com- plaint, and the Crutchers filed a motion for 3, judgment January on default 1986. On 1986, 17, January the ICRC entered default judgment against the Dabises and set the hearing on matter for the issue of dam- ages. place February took on 21, 1986, findings and the ICRC entered its April and conclusions of law on of fact 1986. The awarded the ICRC damages, for emotional distress punitive damages, for out-of-pocket expenses. for The Dabises received notice of the 23, 1986, April on ICRC’s decision and filed petition judicial May review on 20, 1991, 1986. On March the trial court findings entered of fact and conclusions of affirming judgment the default reversing damage appeal the award. This ensued. argue
The Crutchers that the Dabis- damage es the issue fail waived award petition judicial to raise it in their Jacquelyn Thompson, Indianapolis, for review. IND.CODE the stat § appellants-defendants. in ute effect when the Dabises filed their Kirsch, Munster, appel- Thomas L. petition, provided party days that a had 15 lees-plaintiffs. receipt after of notice action petition Along to file a for review. HOFFMAN, Judge. petition, their filed a Dabises motion for extension of time which to file within Appellants-defendants transcript proceedings of the ICRC appeal Charles the trial Crutcher court’s they yet had not received same. After reversal of an Indiana Civil Commis- receiving transcript, (ICRC) $34,- the Dabises filed a awarding sion decision them petition in memorandum of their in 520.00 on their discrimination they damage raised the issue. complaint. Consequently, this Court declines to find appeal The facts relevant to the disclose damage that the Dabises waived that Janice and Charles Crutcher are an issue. couple. interracial married On June Next, Janice contacted Patricia Dabis re- the Crutchers claim the tri garding a house Patricia and her husband al court erred that Hammond, Douglas renting statutorily-delegated authority were exceeded its through Indiana. The Crutchers went them 1, 1985, court, instance, July house Patricia on a trial in the first and When court, put deposit. appellate appeal, offered to down a Patricia reviews agency, informed the Crutchers that she had to decision of an administrative person. agency’s findings show the house to another After court is bound phone findings supported by several calls on Janice’s Patri- fact sub County cia informed her that had rented stantial evidence. Hamilton (1991), Ind.App., the house to someone else. v. Smith D.P.W. recognizing reviewing court Id. While IND.CODE 167-168. The 22-9-l-6(k)(l) does not limit the ICRC to reweigh the evidence or substitute may not losses, restoring agency. simply the court noted that of the that the statute does not em- reviewing agen- *3 damages law, power the ICRC to award as com- court is not cy’s conclusions of insult, pensation for either. The racial Id. agency’s interpretations of by bound court also noted that an administrative legal any determine law and is free to agency only powers has which question arises out of an administra- statute, by conferred and that agency When an inter- tive action. Id. power by govern- claims to a doubtful statute, prets its the court should ac- own mental must be resolved it. great weight, interpretation cord the Id. agency’s the court is not bound if the
interpretation and should reverse Rights In Mid- Indiana Civil Com’n v. agency incorrectly interpreted (1983), Ind.App., west Steel 450 N.E.2d Id. position this Court reiterated its as follows: Ed.) (1988 22-9-1-6 sets IND.CODE § purpose “The of the limitation that ‘or- powers forth the and duties of the ICRC in- pertaining employment ders to shall provides, pertinent as follows: only wages, salary clude or commis- “(k)(l) The commission shall state its sions,’ prohibit is to an award of mone- and, findings of fact after a feelings of embarrass- tary damages person en- the commission finds a ment or insult which arise out of gaged discriminatory in an unlawful discriminatory acts such as sexual har- practice, shall cause to be served on this [Emphasis original.]” rassment. requiring an order to Steel, Based Holman Midwest cease and desist from the unlawful dis- instant trial court ruled that the ICRC’s criminatory practice requiring the Crutchers of to person to further affirmative action take emotional distress purposes as effectuate the of this will punitive was excess its including chapter, but not limited to the authority. agrees This Court statutory power: the trial court. with (A) complainant’s losses in- to restore curred as a result of The ICRC also awarded the Crutch- treatment, as the commission out-of-pocket ex ers for their justice; assure how- deem to penses. The contend the trial Crutchers ever, ap- specific provision this exceeded court erred in pertaining employ- plied to orders statutory authority all but only wages, salary, ment shall include expenses. for said $325.00 ...” any cases or failed to cite to commissions[.] authority of their con relevant Rights In v. Holman Indiana Civil Com’n comply Their failure to tention. (1978), Ind.App. 380 N.E.2d 8.3(A)(7) Ind.Appellate constitutes Rule that the “losses” referred this Court held appellate review. this issue for waiver of 22-9-1-6(k)(l) pe “are to in IND.CODE § Exterminating Inc. Fleener v. Orkin cuniary proved can losses which Ind.App., 560 degree certainty, such as where a some is affirmed. of the trial court employment, or liv person has been denied accommodations, or business viola Rights tion of the Civil Act where that GARRARD, J., pecuniary in actual loss.” violation results concurs. 653-654, at 1285. The 380 N.E.2d dissents with on to hold that Holman court went CHEZEM, dissenting. Judge, statutory powers when ICRC exceeded its provisions compensation respectfully I dissent.
it awarded construed, permit properly racial insult made a landlord to tenant. IC granted in emotional distress Rights Civil Com- WYATT, this case Indiana BANK OF FARMERS STATE oth- To the Holman holds mission. extent Appellant-Plaintiff, erwise, should be reconsid- that decision ered. COMPANY, EQUIPMENT CLARK Civil of the Federal The section Appellee-Defendant. 22-9-1-6, provides: comparable to IC Act judge law finds “If the administrative engaged or is respondent about discriminatory housing prac- engage in a Court of tice, judge shall such administrative *4 such
promptly issue an order for relief 1991. may appropriate, include ac- be by the aggrieved tual suffered injunctive equitable of other added.) U.S.C. relief.” 3612(G)(3). provision This been con- courts to include emo-
strued federal damages. Ti-
tional distress See Steele v. (1973). (Dam- Realty F.2d 380
tle housing
ages in a action are out-of-pocket limited to losses
not an award emotional distress and
include
humiliation.)
Under IC the Commission complainant’s power “restore the justice.” It
losses to assure [as] logically
cannot maintained that by a
emotional distress suffered victim of compensable
discrimination not a “loss” justice Assuring neces-
under requires making
sarily whole of person,
injured and a found to have certainly distress is not
suffered emotional vigilant to
whole. We should be conform
our determination of the law the needs people Supreme of Indiana. Our recently recognized the need to revis- negligent issue of infliction
it the of emo-
tional distress. v. Henderson Shuamber Ind., We, too, willing the question
should be to reconsider recovery complainant’s to a being well when his civil
emotional violated, ratio-
have been for some applied
nale in can be here. Shuamber part
I would therefore reverse disallowing
the trial court’s order distress
Crutcher’s emotional