ILNews

COA rules on home improvement fraud

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
When two parties knowingly enter into a contract for home improvements that will not be done, the contractor cannot be charged with home improvement fraud under Indiana Code 35-43-6-12(a)(4), the Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Lawrence Golladay v. State of Indiana, 08A02-0701-CR-93, the court reversed Golladay's conviction for home improvement fraud under subsection (4)(a), which states, "A home improvement supplier who enters into a home improvement contract and knowingly: uses or employs any deception, false pretense, or false promise to cause a consumer to enter into a home improvement contract ... commits home improvement fraud[.]"

Max Starkey signed a contract with Golladay to replace the roofs on Starkey's house and barn, replace siding on the house, and move an electrical box from outside to inside the house. Weeks after Golladay began working on the house, Starkey told him that his insurer was telling him to sue Golladay for not completing the work fast enough. Golladay eventually walked off the job, citing the threat of a lawsuit from Starkey as the reason.

After he walked off, Starkey and his wife did sue Golladay; Golladay failed to respond to the lawsuit and default judgment was entered against him. He was charged with home improvement fraud as a Class C felony under I.C. 35-43-6-12(a)(3), which states: "A home improvement supplier who enters into a home improvement contract and knowingly promises performance that the home improvement supplier does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed" commits home improvement fraud.

Golladay claimed that Starkey asked Golladay to include siding in the contract but because he had already spent a portion of the insurance money, asked that Golladay paint the house instead. Starkey denied the claim. The trial court found Golladay guilty of violating subsection (a)(4) of the Indiana Code, not (a)(3), the statute under which he was charged.

The Court of Appeals reversed Golladay's conviction under subsection (a)(4) for two reasons. Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote that in order for someone to be charged under subsection (a)(4), the homeowner had to have been deceived by the home improvement supplier. In this case, Starkey and Golladay discussed including new siding in the contract even though Starkey only wanted the house painted because he had already spent some of the insurance money.

The goal of the statute is to protect homeowners; if one knowingly enters a contract where work will not be completed, then the homeowner is not deceived.

Golladay's conviction also violates his due process rights because he was charged under subsection (a)(3) but convicted under subsection (a)(4). Subsection (a)(4) is not inherently included under subsection (a)(3), because (a)(4) requires the defendant to use deception to get a consumer to sign a contract, wrote Judge Friedlander.

The court reversed the conviction and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal.
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. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  2. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? https://medium.com/@HeapingHelping/who-are-the-royal-order-of-jesters-55ffe6f6acea Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Royal-Order-of-Jesters-National-Office/163360597025389 I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtgBdUtw26c

  3. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  4. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  5. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

ADVERTISEMENT