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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT