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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT