ILNews

Majority affirms trial court in failed lease suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The majority on the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of a leasing company on a suit brought by the homeowners after the lessees failed to pay their rent.

Robert and Judy Geller entered into a contract with A.M. Rentals Inc. to lease their home in Westfield. The Gellers admitted that they didn’t read the agreement before accepting a lease agreement with Kurt and Holly Kinney. The A.M. representative Decarius Spells found the Kinneys and spoke to the Gellers over the phone about them. Spells said the Kinneys did have a bankruptcy filing on their credit history but have since been “clear.” Spells did not tell the Gellers that a high-fraud alert was on the Kinneys’ credit report nor did the Gellers see a copy of the report.

The Kinneys signed a three-year lease with a monthly rent of $2,495. After only a few months, the Kinneys stopped paying and owed $74,850 under the terms of the lease. The Gellers sued the Kinneys and A.M. The trial court concluded the Kinneys were only liable for unpaid rent until the Gellers sold their home. The trial court also ruled in favor of A.M. based on the plain language of the lease and management agreement between the Gellers and A.M. that A.M. breached the lease agreement and that A.M. was not liable to the Gellers by virtue of the parties’ exculpatory clause so it didn’t breach its duties under I.C. 25-34.1-10 in investigating tenants and recommending the Kinneys.  

In Robert Geller and Judy Geller v. Kurt P. Kinney, Holly Kinney, and A.M. Rentals, Inc., 29A02-1111-PL-1202, Judges Edward Najam and Melissa May affirmed the trial court. They found the exculpatory clause of the agreement exempts A.M. from liability for its failure to perform duties to the Gellers under I.C. 25-34.1-10-10(a)(3)(C). The majority also held that applying the exculpatory clause to the facts of this case isn’t contrary to public policy and that the conclusion that the Gellers’ sale of their home mitigated the Kinneys’ damages to the Gellers isn’t erroneous.

In his dissent, Judge James Kirsch believed the trial court erred in placing the burden on the Gellers to prove that Spells had committed an act that was exculpated by the contract and in interpreting the exculpatory clause to require the commission of an intentional act by an agent to establish liability.

“I also believe that the clause as interpreted by the trial court vitiates the contract, contravenes Indiana law and is unconscionable,” he wrote. He would remand with instructions to enter judgment for the Gellers for all losses incurred as a result of A.M.’s failure to perform its statutory duties to disclose to the Gellers the adverse facts known by Spells and to exercise reasonable care and skill in this transaction.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT