Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LONNIE M. RANDOLPH East Chicago, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: NICK KATICH STEPHANIE SHAPPELL Katich & Shappell Crown Point, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOSEPH JAMROSZ, JEFFREY JAMROSZ ) And SYSTEMS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) ) Appellants-Defendants, ) ) vs. ) ) RESOURCE BENEFITS, INC., and ) ALBERT VOLK, ) ) Appellees-Plaintiffs. )

No. 45A03-0410-CV-467

APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Robert A. Pete, Judge Cause No. 45D05-0110-CP-483

December 27, 2005

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

SHARPNACK, Judge

Jeffrey Jamrosz, Joseph Jamrosz, and Systems Communications, Inc. ("SCI") (collectively, "Defendants") appeal a jury verdict in favor of Resource Benefits, Inc. ("Resource Benefits") and Albert Volk and the trial court's denial of a motion to correct error. Jeffrey raises four issues, which we restate as: I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Volk to testify regarding an alleged oral agreement where the parties had also entered into a written agreement with an integration clause; Whether the trial court erred by denying Jeffrey's motion for judgment on the evidence under Ind. Trial Rule 50; Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury regarding a Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") regulation; and Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Jeffrey's motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages.

II.

III.

IV.

Joseph and SCI raise ten issues, which we consolidate and restate as: V. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict against Joseph and SCI for breach of contract, conversion, fraud, constructive fraud, and civil conspiracy; Whether the trial court erred by failing to rule on Joseph and SCI's motion for declaratory relief; Whether the trial court pierced the corporate veil by making Joseph jointly and severally liable for the jury's verdict;

VI.

VII.

VIII. Whether the trial court erred by denying Joseph and SCI's motion for judgment on the evidence under Ind. Trial Rule 50; and IX. Whether the trial court erred when it failed to specify which portion of the verdict each Defendant was responsible for paying.

2

We affirm in part and reverse in part. 1 The relevant facts follow. SCI is a corporation in the business of performing repairs and service on radios and also owns various radio towers, including one in Crown Point, Indiana. Joseph is the owner of SCI, and Jeffrey is Joseph's son. Resource Benefits is a company formed by Volk, a pharmacist, to obtain Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") licenses. 2 In 1993 and 1994, Resource Benefits applied to the FCC for sixty SMR licenses and was eventually awarded four SMR licenses, including one in Crown Point, Indiana. The Crown Point license was issued on

We remind counsel for all of the parties that Ind. Appellate Rule 46 requires each fact to be "supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix." We also remind counsel for Jeffrey and counsel for Joseph and SCI that Ind. Appellate Rule 46 also requires that "[t]he argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning." Further, "[e]ach contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on . . . ." Ind. Appellate Rule 46.
2

1

The FCC's website provides the following background on SMR licenses:

The Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) service was first established by the Commission in 1979 to provide land mobile communications on a commercial (i.e., for profit) basis. A traditional SMR system consists of one or more base station transmitters, one or more antennas, and end user radio equipment that usually consists of a mobile radio unit either provided by the end user or obtained from the SMR operator for a fee. SMR end users may operate in either an "interconnected" mode or a "dispatch" mode. Interconnected mode interconnects mobile radio units with the public switched telephone network (PSTN). An end user may thus transmit a message with its mobile radio unit to the SMR base station. The call will then be routed to the local PSTN. This allows the mobile radio unit to function as a mobile telephone. Dispatch mode allows two-way, over the air, voice communications between two or more mobile units (e.g., between a car and a truck) or between mobile units and fixed units (e.g., between the end user's office and a truck). Typical SMR customers using dispatch communications include construction companies with several trucks at different jobs or on the road, with a dispatch operation in a central office. Specialized Mobile Radio Service, available at http://www.wireless.fcc.gov/smrs (last visited Sept. 13, 2005).

3

March 9, 1994.

The license included five frequencies, and certain equipment and

installations were necessary to make the system operational. In December 1994, Volk contacted Joseph because Volk wanted to lease tower space from SCI and needed assistance in making the system operational. After they signed a lease in March 1995, Joseph found that the coordinates of the license were not the same as the coordinates for SCI's tower. Joseph advised Volk that Volk could not use his license on SCI's tower and that if Volk wanted to use the tower, he would have to move the license to the tower's coordinates. Additionally, because Resource Benefits had failed to construct the system for the Crown Point license within twelve months of being issued a license, as was required by FCC rules, the license was at risk of being cancelled. According to Volk, Joseph orally proposed that Jeffrey would file a finder's preference application and that Jeffrey would request that the FCC move the frequencies to SCI's tower. A finder's preference application allowed individuals to assist the FCC in recovering licenses that had been cancelled automatically due to violations of FCC rules, such as the failure to timely construct the system. The finder's preference

application allowed an individual to claim such licenses. Thus, if a finder's preference application was granted, the license would be in Jeffrey's name rather than Resource Benefits' name. The parties agreed that Jeffrey would file a finder's preference application to save Resource Benefits' license, obtain an extra year to construct the system, and move the 4

coordinates of the license. In return, the license would still belong to Resource Benefits, Resource Benefits would construct the system, and Resource Benefits would pay $15,000 to Jeffrey when Resource Benefits sold the license ("Oral Agreement"). According to Jeffrey, although he had ownership of the license on paper, he was merely a "namesake." Transcript at 161. Jeffrey filed a finder's preference application on October 18, 1995. Volk did not object to Jeffrey's finder's preference application. On December 6, 1996, the FCC notified Volk that Jeffrey had filed a finder's preference application, that Jeffrey presented evidence of a violation of 47 C.F.R

Download Joseph Jamrosz, et al v. Resource Benefits Inc. and Albert Volk.pdf

Indiana Law