ILNews

COA upholds eviction action

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court properly treated a couple's action against the man who agreed to purchase a house from them as an eviction, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded. The court also analyzed for the first time the nature and effect of a pre-closing possession agreement like the one in the instant case.

In Frank Chiprean v. Brody and Lacy Stock, No. 48A04-0907-CV-389, Frank Chiprean appealed the $6,000 judgment against him in favor of the Stocks. Chiprean executed a purchase agreement for a house owned by the Stocks and completion of the sale was contingent upon Chiprean getting a mortgage to buy the house. The parties also entered into an agreement that allowed Chiprean to take possession of the home and make monthly payments to the Stocks. He also agreed to accept the property in its current condition with no further responsibility to the seller for maintenance or repair and didn't have an inspection done of the home.

While living there, part of the roof collapsed, which caused Chiprean to only be able to live in a small part of the home. He stopped making payments even though the Stocks had made arrangements to have the roof repaired.

The Stocks then filed a small claims action to evict Chiprean; Chiprean filed a counterclaim to recover his $5,000 deposit. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Stocks and denied Chiprean's counterclaim.

Chiprean argued on appeal that the trial court should have foreclosed his interest in the property, but he waived that argument because he never requested the property be foreclosed. Citing Skendzel v. Marshall, 261 Ind. 226, 301 N.E.2d 641 (1973), the appellate court noted there must be a "consummated" land sale contract with respect to a piece of land and that didn't happen here because completion was contingent upon Chiprean getting financing.

The possession agreement also appears to be more in the nature of a lease than a land sale contract, wrote Judge Michael Barnes, noting the court couldn't find any Indiana cases analyzing the nature and effect of a pre-closing possession agreement like this one.

"We reviewed one case from New York wherein the court held that payments made under a pre-closing possession agreement did not create an equitable interest in the property because there was a lack of 'clear intent between the parties that such property be held, given or transferred as security for an obligation . . . .,'" he wrote. "We conclude that there likewise is a lack of such clear intent in this case."

There's nothing in either agreement indicating that the monthly payments were intended to pay down the contract balance owed to the Stocks. The agreements don't constitute a land sale contract or reflect intent by the parties that Chiprean have an equitable interest in the property, and he's not entitled to the benefit for foreclosure proceedings, wrote the judge.

The appellate court also upheld the denial of Chiprean's counterclaim, ruling he wasn't permitted to avoid liability for payments under the possession agreement, despite his argument the house was largely unlivable after the roof collapsed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT