ILNews

Judges reverse summary judgment for agent, partner

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A case involving a Bloomington real estate transaction required the Indiana Court of Appeals to decipher the statutes in question without the aid of previous interpretations because of a lack of previous caselaw interpreting them.

Sheree Demming sued real estate agent Cheryl Underwood and her business partner Kenneth Kinney for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and vicarious liability, and she requested the imposition of a constructive trust ordering Underwood and Kinney to convey title of the properties at issue to Demming.

Demming renovated and leased or sold properties in Bloomington and had her eye on two properties near Indiana University’s campus. She had Underwood contact the property owners’ real estate agent many times over the course of several years to see if the owners would be interested in selling, and the two discussed strategies in order for Demming to get the properties. Underwood was to be paid when Demming purchased the properties. When Underwood learned the owner would entertain offers after the death of her husband, instead of informing Demming, Underwood and Kinney submitted an offer and purchased the properties.

The trial court granted summary judgment to Underwood and Kinney on all of the claims, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and no agency relationship existed between Demming and Underwood.

But in Sheree Demming v. Cheryl Underwood and Kenneth Kinney, No. 53A01-1005-PL-252, the Court of Appeals judges found several genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Demming exercised sufficient control over Underwood’s activities to support the existence of an agency relationship and whether Underwood breached a common law fiduciary duty owed to Demming.

On the matter of whether Underwood breached a fiduciary duty owed to Demming under Indiana’s real estate agency statutes, Judge Paul Mathias pointed out that the applicable statutes in Indiana Code Chapter 25-34.1-10 (referred to as the agency chapter) are nearly opaque and there is a dearth of caselaw interpreting them.

The definitions of “customer” and “client” highlight “the perplexities inherent in the Agency Chapter. Section 25-34.1-10-9.5(a)(2) provides that a real estate licensee has an agency relationship with and is representing the person with whom the licensee is working unless the licensee is assisting that person as a customer without compensation. But a customer is someone who is not a client, and client is defined as someone who has entered into an agency relationship with a licensee. Thus, under section 25-34.1-10-9.5(a)(2), a person with whom a licensee is working is a client unless he or she is not a client and is not paying for the licensee’s services,” he wrote.

The trial court concluded Demming was merely a customer, relying on the definition of real estate transaction under Section 25-34.1-10-8, to rule that a “cold call” to find out if a property not on the market could be purchased was not “the sale or lease of any legal or equitable interest in real estate” and was not a “real estate transaction.”

The judges held the fact that the properties weren’t listed for sale at the time Underwood contacted the other real estate agent doesn’t necessarily preclude the conclusion that Underwood was Demming’s agent under the agency chapter. They also held that Underwood breached the fiduciary duties owed to Demming under statute.

The judges ruled that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud claims and that summary judgment was an “inappropriate vehicle for the trial court to dispose of Demming’s request for the imposition of a constructive trust.” They also reversed summary judgment in favor of Kinney on the claim of vicarious liability and remanded for further proceedings.
 

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT