ILNews

Court finds fax to be a contract

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a landlord in his breach of lease claims against the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, finding a faxed agreement amending the original terms of the lease constituted a contract.

In Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles c/o Joel L. Silverman, commissioner v. Ash, Inc., No. 74A01-0711-CV-518, the BMV appealed the grant of summary judgment and damages award of $95,854.40 plus interest at 8 percent per annum to Ash, Inc. The BMV argued a fax sent to Ash modifying the terms of the original lease didn't constitute a contract, so the BMV wasn't bound by it.

The BMV leased two buildings from Ash in southern Indiana. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the BMV could terminate the lease with a 60-day notice to Ash and any modifications of the lease must be written and signed by both the BMV and Ash.

In January 2003, the BMV's leasing director faxed to Ash's owner, George "Butch" Crone, proposed modifications of the lease asking Crone to create parking spaces and an ADA-compliant ramped walkway at its Mount Vernon location, and make other improvements to the Mount Vernon and Rockport locations. The modification also said after the work was completed the cancellation term in the original lease would be removed.

Crone faxed the document to the leasing director, writing "I accept the above conditions" and signed his name. Crone completed the work and two years later, the BMV notified him they would be terminating the leases under the original cancellation term in the contract.

The BMV argued the January 2003 fax between the leasing director and Ash didn't constitute a contract, so it could cancel its lease with 60-days notice as under the original contract. The Court of Appeals ruled the fax was binding because it was in writing, both the BMV's leasing agent and Crone signed the fax, and the Statute of Frauds doesn't apply in this case, wrote Judge Carr Darden. As such, the cancellation term was no longer available to the BMV.

Even if the fax wasn't considered a contract, Ash would still be entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the judge continued.

The appellate court also affirmed the trial court denial of future damages to Ash because Crone failed to prove at trial what his future damages would be. The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court to reduce the interest on the judgment from 8 percent to 6 percent pursuant to Indiana statute.

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT