ILNews

Judges rule on lease dispute involving hospital

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that a hospital did owe rent to the property owner for a broken lease involving a third party, but the damages the trial court ordered the hospital pay need to be reconsidered.

Sisters of St. Francis Health Services Inc. had a lease agreement with EON Properties in Schererville beginning in 2000. Over the years, the hospital’s office space was reduced and portions were leased to two separate tenants. When EON entered into a lease agreement with these new tenants, the hospital’s rent was reduced accordingly. As part of its lease with Ameriquest, EON required through a third amendment with the hospital’s lease that the hospital be responsible for the last two years of Ameriquest’s lease if the company vacated before its five-year lease ended. EON would be responsible for the first 3 years if Ameriquest left early.

Ameriquest ended up vacating after only 29 months, so EON sought the last two years’ lease payments from the hospital. The hospital refused to pay, so EON filed this lawsuit for breach of lease and quantum meruit. The hospital counterclaimed for breach of lease and quantum meruit because EON increased the hospital’s rent payments and allegedly accepted overpayments from Sisters of St. Francis. The trial court granted summary judgment for EON and ordered the hospital pay more than $180,000.

In Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc. v. EON Properties, LLC, No. 45A05-1110-PL-587, the Court of Appeals upheld the finding that the hospital was liable for the last two years of the Ameriquest lease, rejecting Sisters of St. Francis’ claim that Ameriquest had to occupy the premises for 36 months and had to properly exercise its option to vacate before the hospital could be held liable under the amendment to the hospital’s lease. But those terms were in the lease agreement between EON and Ameriquest, and the hospital was not a party to those terms.

The trial court did err by granting summary judgment in favor of EON with respect to the amount of damages the hospital owed as there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Sisters of St. Francis should receive credits for a security deposit, its claimed overpayments under the second lease amendment, and the improperly increased rent that EON doesn’t dispute. The trial court is to continue with the underlying litigation on the damages issue.

 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT