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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.