Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SAMANTHA M. JOSLYN Rensselaer, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: WILLIAM L. TOUCHETTE Merrillville, Indiana

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
KATHY LYNCH, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. DARYL and ELIZABETH ACKERMAN, Appellees-Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Jan 19 2011, 9:38 am

CLERK

No. 37A03-1004-CC-193

APPEAL FROM THE JASPER CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable John D. Potter, Judge Cause No. 37C01-0911-CC-668

January 19, 2011

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Chief Judge

Case Summary and Issue Following a bench trial, Kathy Lynch appeals the judgment in favor of Daryl and Elizabeth Ackerman (collectively the "Ackermans"). Lynch raises the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in finding that her contract with the Ackermans was unenforceable. Concluding that the trial court erred and that the contract was enforceable, we reverse and remand. Facts and Procedural History In October 2006, the Ackermans signed an agreement to rent with an option to buy a home from Lynch. Although all signed the agreement in October 2006, the terms state the Ackermans' occupancy and monthly payments began in September 2006. The agreement, entitled "RENT WITH OPTION TO BUY CONTRACT," includes the total home price, down payment amount, interest rate, monthly payment amount, payment instructions, late payment penalty details, and the following statements: This contract will be upheld until the dissolution of marriage between Douglas and Kathy L. Lynch-Baughman in 2007. All payments will apply to the ownership of mortgage unless renter/buyers choose, all payments will be assumed as rent only. Upon dissolution, a new contract will be written. . . . *** Length of contract-5 yrs-September 1, 2011-balance due in full by obtaining a bank mortgage by this date. Decision will be up to mortgage holder to continue this original contract if requested by renter/buyers. Taxes will be paid by Kathy Lynch. Insurance will be paid by Kathy Lynch. . . . *** . . . If the rent/ mortgage falls behind 90 days, the house should be put up for sale. All profit will go the [sic] buyers after mortgage and all legal fees pertaining to the home are paid. Appendix to Brief of Appellant at 72. 2

In August 2009, Lynch filed suit in small claims court to evict the Ackermans for failure to pay rent for over a year. Following a hearing, the presiding judge provided candid comments but declined to enter a judgment, and instead transferred the matter to the circuit court. The parties then finalized a partial settlement, which led to the Ackermans returning possession of the home to Lynch on November 1, 2009. Lynch filed a complaint on or about November 25, 2009 in the circuit court, alleging the Ackermans' breach of contract and seeking damages. On March 12, 2010, a bench trial was held, at which Lynch appeared represented by counsel and the Ackermans appeared pro se. At trial Lynch argued the Ackermans were at least sixteen months behind in payments, and although the Ackermans conceded that under the terms of the agreement they were behind, they contended the amount owed was less than Lynch alleged but did not specify an amount. The Ackermans also conceded they did not execute a writing of their intent to exercise their option to purchase, although the trial revealed they and Lynch understood the Ackermans' intended to exercise that option at some point because the Ackermans performed substantial landscaping on the property and renovated the home's interior. Lynch testified that finalization of her divorce mentioned in the agreement took longer than expected, and was not finalized until April 2009.1 Neither party requested special findings of fact or conclusions of law pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A). Following trial, the trial court entered an order which reads: The Court . . . finds that the parties' contract states as follows:
The exact date Lynch's divorce became finalized is unclear from the record.

1

3

"This contract will be upheld until the dissolution of marriage between Douglas and Kathy L. Lynch-Baughman in 2007." The Court further finds that Douglas and Kathy L. Lynch-Baughman's divorce was final in the year 2009, prior to the filing of this case regarding the rent with option to buy contract. The Court therefore finds that this contract is unenforceable against the buyers, Daryl and Elizabeth Ackerman, and the Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of her complaint. Id. at 12. Lynch now appeals. Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review Here neither party requested special findings of fact and the trial court was not required to enter such findings. Our standard of review of the trial court's sua sponte findings and general judgment are well-settled: Sua sponte findings control only as to the issues they cover and a general judgment will control as to the issues upon which there are no findings. A general judgment entered with findings will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. When a court has made special findings of fact, an appellate court reviews sufficiency of the evidence using a two-step process. First, it must determine whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact; second, it must determine whether those findings of fact support the trial court's conclusions of law. Findings will only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. In order to determine that a finding or conclusion is clearly erroneous, an appellate court's review of the evidence must leave it with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind. 1997) (quotations and citations omitted).

4

II. Enforceability of the Contract The Ackermans concede the contract was enforceable when entered in 2006. Brief of Appellees, Daryl and Elizabeth Ackerman at 20. Indeed, the face of the agreement contains the requirements of a valid contract

Download Kathy Lynch v. Daryl and Elizabeth Ackerman.pdf

Indiana Law