ILNews

Forged agreement presents question of fact

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A company that forged a former employee's non-compete contract and later sued and settled with another company over that false document isn't entitled to summary judgment in a new suit brought by the other company after it learned the document was forged, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Tru-Cal Inc. hired a former employee of competitor Conrad Kacsik Instrument Systems Inc. shortly after he quit. Conrad filed suit against Tru-Cal and the employee, Steven Sulzbach, basing most of its claims on an employment agreement he allegedly signed while working for Conrad that said he wouldn't work for a competitor for two years. After Tru-Cal learned of the litigation in an Ohio court and the non-compete agreement, it settled the suit. Sulzbach maintained he never remembered signing the document. The settlement contained mutual releases and an integration clause.

About a year later, Tru-Cal learned the Sulzbach's signature on the document was most likely forged because a former executive of Conrad said no employees signed non-compete agreements. It filed the instant action against Conrad seeking treble damages and attorney fees pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act, alleged the Ohio litigation initiated by Conrad constituted abuse of process, and Tru-Cal was entitled to rescission of the settlement agreement, attorney fees, and punitive damages. Hamilton Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Conrad on all of Tru-Cal's claims.

In the appeal, Tru-Cal v. Conrad, No. 29A04-0809-CV-511, the essence of the dispute between the companies appears to center on whether Tru-Cal rightfully or reasonably relied upon Conrad's forged documents and the Ohio litigation in filing its suit, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander. Conrad argues Tru-Cal couldn't reasonably rely upon these false representations because of the integration clause in the settlement agreement, which disclaimed reliance on any outside statement or representation.

The Court of Appeals found Prall v. Indiana National Bank, 627 N.E.2d 1374 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), and Circle Ctr. Dev. Co. v. Y/G Ind., L.P., 762 N.E.2d 176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), to be factually distinguishable from the instant case.

"Rather, the alleged fraud here involves a forged employment agreement that was filed in a court of law, along with a complaint and an affidavit that represented to the Ohio court that said agreement was valid," wrote the judge. "Assuming, as we must, that the employment agreement was forged, the Ohio litigation initiated by CKI was therefore a sham."

In the instant case, there's no doubt the fraud directly induced the execution of the settlement agreement or at least contributed to it as a cause, wrote Judge Friedlander. Tru-Cal presented a material issue of fact as to whether it had the right to rely on the employment agreement and other related representations made in the Ohio litigation.

The trial court also erred in granting summary judgment regarding Tru-Cal's Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act claim because there is a question of fact as to whether the conduct and or the result of any of the alleged offenses occurred in Indiana.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT