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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT