« Having trouble with site | Main | Indiana Law - National Report Cites Indiana as "fundamentally affected by Blakely" »

Thursday, August 05, 2004

Indiana Decisions - Two Court of Appeals Opinions Today

Kimberly S. Schmidt v. David A. Schmidt (8/5/04 IndCtApp) [Family Law]
Sharpnack, Judge

The trial court interpreted the parties’ antenuptial agreement and concluded that, under the agreement, Husband and Wife agreed to separate their property upon dissolution of their marriage. Wife raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting declaratory relief to Husband based upon its interpretation of the antenuptial agreement as separating Husband and Wife’s property upon dissolution of their marriage. * * *

Reversed and remanded.
ROBB, J. concurs
DARDEN, J. concurs in result with separate opinion

George Frankl and Tom H. Smith v. State Lottery Commission of Indiana (8/5/04 IndCtApp) [Procedure; Contract]
Bailey, Judge
[Issue] [W]hether the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to the Lottery because the Lottery closed instant games and refused payment of prizes absent compliance with a contractual obligation to announce game end dates. * * *

When Smith purchased his ticket, on September 15, 1996, the back of the card contained the following statement: “All prizes must be claimed within 60 days of announced end of game.”

Having discovered that he had a winning ticket, Smith filled out the back of the ticket as required and presented it to the retailer on January 20, 1997, demanding his five dollar prize. Unbeknownst to Smith, the game had ended September 30, 1996, and the last day to claim prizes was on November 29, 1996. The retailer informed Smith that it was too late to redeem his ticket. On January 22, 1997, Smith went to the principal office of the Hoosier Lottery in Indianapolis in an attempt to claim his prize. There he was told that the game was over and that nothing could be done to obtain his prize. There were no signs posted at the retailer’s site announcing a closing date for the game nor was Smith advised by the retailer or the Lottery of an administrative appeal process or given a claim form. * * *

On February 7, 2002, the trial court granted Smith’s motion to certify the case as a class action and divided the Class into two subclasses: (A) purchasers of scratch-off lottery tickets between 1989 and 1997 who actually presented a winning ticket to the Lottery or a retailer and were refused or denied payment (“Class A”); and (B) all other purchasers of winning scratch-off tickets between 1989 and 1997 who have not received payment for the winning tickets (“Class B”). * * *

Material questions of fact are not appropriate for resolution by summary judgment. T.R. 56(C). It is for the fact-finder to decide whether the conduct of the Lottery precluded purchasers who tendered their prize-winning tickets from obtaining a substantial benefit of the contract. We therefore reverse the summary judgment order in favor of the Lottery and against the members of Class A.

However, summary judgment was properly granted to the Lottery with respect to the claims of the members of Class B because the Lottery’s designated materials negated the damages element of their breach of contract claim. The members of Class B elected not to timely tender any lottery ticket for a prize – after either the end date or official repeal of the games - and thus suffered no damages attributable to the conduct of the Lottery. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BAKER, J., and DARDEN, J., concur.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 5, 2004 02:01 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions