ILNews

Court divided on purchase agreement termination

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The judges on the Indiana Court of Appeals were split in deciding whether the seller of a condominium should have to refund a deposit to purchase after the buyers discovered electrical problems that turned out to be minor issues.

In Gayle Fischer v. Michael and Noel Heymann/ Michael and Noel Heymann v. Caryn J. Craig, et al., No. 49A04-1004-PL-231, Gayle Fischer appealed the judgment ordering she reimburse the earnest money deposit of Michael and Noel Heymann and pay their litigation costs and attorneys fees after the couple backed out of an agreement to purchase Fischer’s condominium. The Heymanns entered into a purchase agreement and paid $5,000 in earnest money, and as a condition of the agreement they had the home inspected. The purchase agreement allowed for them to terminate the agreement if the inspection revealed a major defect and the seller is unable or unwilling to remedy the defect before closing.

The Heymanns’ inspector listed as a major concern on his report that there was no power to the outlets in two bathrooms and an outlet on a balcony. The Heymanns agreed to give Fischer until Feb. 18, 2006, to resolve the issue. On Feb. 17, they put an offer on a different unit, and on Feb. 19, they executed a document for release from Fischer’s unit. On Feb. 20, Fischer’s electrician fixed the problems by pushing a GFI reset button and replacing a light bulb.

Fischer then sued the Heymanns for specific performance of the purchase agreement or for reimbursement of maintenance expenses along with the difference between the agreed upon price and the present fair market value and attorneys fees and costs.

Chief Judge Margret Robb and Judge Patricia Riley reversed, holding the evidence doesn’t support the trial court’s finding that the Heymanns reasonably believed there was a major defect. They held the Heymanns had to have an objectively reasonable belief that the property contained major defects. The findings in the inspection don’t support an objectively reasonable belief that the defect was major.

“The report indicates there was no electrical power to three outlets, which could be and in fact was easily repaired. Therefore, under an objective standard, this would not have a significant adverse effect on the property’s value or significantly impair the health or safety of occupants,” Chief Judge Robb wrote.

The majority noted the buyer must be held responsible for selecting an inspector whose technical capability and approach to identifying and conveying problems in an inspection report enable a compromise as to repairs or cost deductions between a buyer and seller or termination of the purchase agreement. Any failure by the buyer’s inspector must be faulted to the buyer.

“Any incompetency of the Heymanns’ inspector – demonstrated by his failing to resolve the problem by pushing the GFI reset buttons and triggering the Heymanns’ concern as to the seriousness of the electrical problems – must be faulted to the Heymanns,” she continued. “It was the Heymanns’ responsibility to clarify with the inspector the extent of the electrical problem prior to their basing their decision to terminate the agreement on his findings.”

Judge Elaine Brown dissented, pointing out that there was no evidence the inspector chosen by the Heymanns wasn’t qualified, that his inspections were substandard, or that the report was lacking in quality.

She also dissented on the matter that the Heymanns gave Fischer through Feb. 18 to agree to remedy the problems, but she failed to do so. Judge Brown pointed to a part of the purchase agreement that states time periods in it are calendar days and shall expire at midnight of the date stated unless otherwise agreed to. By its terms, the purchase agreement expired at midnight on Feb. 18, she wrote.

The majority remanded for the trial court to determine the extent of damages owed to Fischer, as well as trial and appellate attorneys fees and costs.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT