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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT