Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL L. EINTERZ ANDREW J. EINTERZ MICHAEL L. EINTERZ, JR. Einterz & Einterz Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: BARTON B. OST Blythe & Ost Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Dec 18 2009, 9:26 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DAVID NICK REINHART a/k/a RICK REINHART, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) ) GREGG W. BOECK, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )

CLERK

No. 06A04-0905-CV-286

APPEAL FROM THE BOONE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Matthew C. Kincaid, Judge Cause No. 06D01-0709-PL-438

December 18, 2009

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE David Nick Reinhart appeals from the trial courts entry of summary judgment for Gregg W. Boeck. Reinhart raises four issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as the following dispositive issue: whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes the entry of summary judgment for Boeck on his claim that Reinhart is jointly and severally liable for his business partners fraudulent sale of unregistered securities. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The trial courts summary judgment order included a detailed, eight-page "statement of undisputed facts drawn from the designations filed in this case." Appellants App. at 10. According to the trial court: In October of 2005, Ronald G. Thomas began a scheme to lure David Nick Reinhart into a phony real estate business as a "partner" and stalking horse for other marks. Thomas and Reinhart first spoke on the phone. Thomas posed as an experienced real estate entrepreneur who had a partner named Josh Bach who handled construction. [Id. at 567 (citing Reinharts Deposition).1] Thomas said that although he had a substantial line of credit he was looking for "partners" to expand the business. A few days after first speaking, Thomas and Reinhart met at a restaurant. Thomas said he was about to make $800,000 on the sale of some Castleton condominiums. Reiterating the same representations he made on the phone, Thomas continued to lure Reinhart into his business which he described as consisting of "partners." [Id. (citing Reinharts Deposition).] Within a week, Thomas and Reinhart met again at another restaurant with Josh Bach. With Thomas reiterating the same sales pitch, Josh Bach "confirmed" that he was on the construction side of the business. Thomas for his part concentrated on the financial side. Immediately after this meeting the three ventured off to the west side of suburban Indianapolis to look at possible investment properties.
In his designations to the trial court, Boeck included multiple summaries of Reinharts testimony during a deposition and the exhibits included therein, on which the trial court substantially relied. Although Reinharts deposition is not included in the record on appeal, Reinhart does not challenge the accuracy of Boecks summarization of that evidence.
1

2

In early November of 2005, with assurances to Reinhart that (1) he was just the sort of person Thomas was looking to work with (2) that Reinhart had the right attitude and could be trained in real estate and (3) that Reinharts lack of experience in real estate would be a blessing because he could more easily be taught by Thomas, Thomas invited Reinhart to join the business that Thomas called [TRG]. [Id. at 569 (citing Reinharts Deposition).] Reinhart agreed to enter real estate transactions with Thomas for purposes of attempting to realize profits. [Id. (citing Reinharts Deposition).] Shortly after, the two co-venturers bought some real estate which was titled in Reinharts name. [Id. (citing Reinharts Deposition).] Reinhart also began to solicit investors for TRG. [Id. (citing Reinharts Deposition).] Thomas had Reinhart do this because he told him that although business was great Thomas was tapped out on his credit lines. [Id. at 569-70 (citing Reinharts Deposition).] This was an assertion that Reinhart heard spoken, not just to him, but to potential investors to whom he heard Thomas speak. [Id. at 570 (citing Reinharts Deposition).] Reinhart never verified that Thomas had any lines of credit. [Id. (citing Reinharts Deposition).] Reinhart also, though he had asked for financial documentation from Thomas and was promised the same, never received any financial documentation. [Id. (citing Reinharts Deposition).] As a matter of undisputed fact, never during their entire association together, did Reinhart ever receive any financial statements from Thomas. [Id. (citing Reinharts Deposition).] Reinhart never checked with Thomas purported lawyer to confirm the accuracy of anything Thomas said. [Id. at 570-71 (citing Reinharts Deposition).] Thomas tasked Reinhart with finding a total of six investors. Thomas told Reinhart he already had three. [Id. at 571 (citing Reinharts Deposition).] When Reinhart asked for the names of the investors, Thomas declined to furnish them stating that they wanted to be confidential and Reinhart did not quibble with Thomas position. [Id. (citing Reinharts Deposition).] An advertisement began appearing in the Indianapolis Star starting on December 4, 2005. The advertisement said: REAL ESTATE Serious Investor Wanted I find the properties Both names go on deed Profits split 50/50 $15K-$80K per deal Call Nick @ 317-873-xxxx
3

The telephone number was Reinharts home number. When prospects would call, Reinhart would repeat the assertions made to him by Thomas. [Id. at 249,

Download David Nick Reinhart a/k/a Rick Reinhart v. Gregg W. Boeck.pdf

Indiana Law