ILNews

Ex-employee wins appeal and prejudgment interest

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former employee is entitled to commissions owed to him after he left a real estate company, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Wednesday. The judges also found the ex-employee is entitled to prejudgment interest.

Peter Karagan worked for Dennis Larson’s real estate companies for two years before leaving in December 2007. His oral agreement with Larson said Karagan would be paid 75 percent of the gross commissions Larson received for transactions Karagan procured. When Larson didn’t pay up, Karagan sued for breach of contract and conversion. Larson did not respond to Karagan’s motion for summary judgment or to Karagan’s two requests for admission of fact.

The Lake Superior Court found Karagan was entitled to treble damages and awarded him $177,612.50 plus costs and future commissions, but denied his request for prejudgment interest.

In Dennis Larson, Rose Real Estate, Inc., and Diversified Commercial Real Estate v. Peter N. Karagan, 45A04-1112-CC-656, the Court of Appeals found Karagan’s designated evidence doesn’t give rise to a genuine issue of material fact, as Larson argued.

The judges also rejected Larson’s claim that there was no evidence of criminal intent to support the application of the criminal conversion statute that was used to award treble damages. The Court of Appeals cited White v. Indiana Realty Associates II, 555 N.E.2d 454, 458 (Ind. 1990), to support the trial court’s determination that Karagan was entitled to treble damages.

The evidence also established what Karagan’s commission was, the transactions for which he was entitled to commissions, and the amount of the commissions, so the trial court should have awarded Karagan prejudgment interest, Judge Melissa May wrote. The judges remanded the matter to the trial court to do so.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT