ILNews

Home improvement contract enforceable

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though a restoration company’s contract with a homeowner did not satisfy the requirements of the Home Improvement Contracts Act, that did not automatically render the contract void, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled. The judges reversed judgment in favor of the homeowner and ordered he pay the company for the work it performed.

In Imperial Insurance Restoration & Remodeling, Inc. v. James Costello, No. 10A05-1109-SC-478, James Costello and his wife hired Imperial Insurance Restoration and Remodeling to repair water damage in their home following a burst pipe. The Costellos’ insurance company put them in touch with Imperial. James Costello did not read the agreements he signed, which included a work authorization and a satisfaction of work completed. The paperwork he signed did not comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Contracts Act, which Imperial later admitted.

The Costellos received $670 from their insurer to cover the clean-up costs but did not pay Imperial for the work. Imperial took James Costello to small claims court and the court ruled in his favor. He asserted as a defense that the contracts did not comply with the HICA and were void.

The appellate judges pointed out that the HICA is silent as to whether contracts that do not meet the requirements are void or unenforceable. It declares a nonconforming contract to be a deceptive act and affords the aggrieved customer the remedies available to victims of deceptive consumer sales under the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. The judges determined that the lack of the use of “void” or “unenforceable” in the HICA did not mean the General Assembly intended that every contract made in violation of the HICA was automatically void.

“If we were to so hold, Imperial would suffer both a serious and undeserved forfeiture outweighing the other factors,” wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey.

The COA ordered judgment be entered in favor of Imperial for $669.86 and that the small claims court determine the contractual interest due on the contract and if any costs and attorney fees should be awarded.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT