ILNews

Panel disagrees as to when woman failed to mitigate damages

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By a vote of 2-1, the Indiana Court of Appeals Friday reduced nearly $94,000 in damages to just $117 after finding the seller of a condo failed to mitigate her damages after the buyers backed out of the sale over repairs. Judge Cale Bradford believed seller Gayle Fischer was entitled to the original damages award.

Michael and Noel Heymann entered into a purchase agreement to buy an Indianapolis condo from Fischer for $315,000. An inspection of the property revealed several outlets did not have power and a light did not work properly. The Heymanns believed this constituted a “major defect” as defined in their agreement that allowed them to demand Fischer to fix the issues or walk away from the deal.

The Heymanns informed Fischer of the problems Feb. 10, 2006. She asked for an extension to agree to fix the issues, but the Heymanns on Feb. 15 said she had only until Feb. 18 to respond. Fischer never responded, so the Heymanns sought to buy another condo. Fischer’s electrician did resolve the issues, which cost $117 to fix.

This case has already gone before the Court of Appeals once, and the judges found the Heymanns attempted termination of the purchase agreement was ineffective and that Fischer was owed damages. In this appeal, the issue is when Fischer failed to mitigate her damages. The Heymanns claimed that she is only entitled to the $117; Fischer wants actual and consequential damages of more than $286,000.

In Gayle Fischer v. Michael and Noel Heymann, 49A02-1204-PL-340, Judges Edward Najam and Ezra Friedlander held that the trial court findings don’t support the original $94,000 award. The evidence shows that after the Heymanns breached the purchase agreement, Fischer could have easily mitigated her damages by indicating she would make the minor electrical repairs. They ruled that whatever additional damages she may have incurred through 2007 or 2011 were caused by her own failure to mitigate in 2006. They ordered that she receive just $117, plus attorney fees commensurate with her recovery and costs.

Judge Cale Bradford believed that had Fischer assented to the inspection report response, she would have been required to make the minor repairs, but that would have been in performance of the purchase agreement, not in mitigation of damages. The contract didn’t require her to fix minor defects in the home. Instead, she failed to mitigate her damages in February 2007 when she did not accept a $240,000 offer on the condo from another buyer.

As such, she would be entitled to the nearly $94,000, which includes $75,000 in damages, more than $15,000 in carrying costs and nearly $4,000 in attorney fees, Bradford concluded.

 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT