« Law - "Internet experts and estate planners say a cybercrisis is brewing because Internet services, barring court order, forbid accessing or transferring accounts unless someone has the password" | Main | Ind. Decisions - " Court Rejects Cross-State Rules on Car Title Lenders" »

Monday, February 01, 2010

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 4 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Mark Hinkel v. Sataria Distribution & Packaging, Inc. , a contracts/employment law case, Judge Vaidik writes, in a 12-page, 2-1 opinion including a 2-page dissent:

The appellant, Mark Hinkel, was hired to work for the appellee, Sataria Distribution and Packaging, Inc. (“Sataria”). Hinkel was allegedly promised a year’s worth of salary and insurance coverage if he were ever terminated involuntarily, but his written employment contract did not provide for severance pay or post-employment benefits. Hinkel was soon terminated, and he did not receive the severance package he says he was promised. Hinkel sued for breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Sataria. We hold that (1) Hinkel’s written employment contract is a completely integrated agreement which precludes consideration of any prior or contemporaneous oral promises, (2) to the extent the severance agreements were made after the execution of the written contract, they were not supported by additional consideration, and (3) Hinkel is unable to sustain his claim of promissory estoppel. We affirm. * * *

RILEY, J., concurs.
CRONE, J., dissents with separate opinion. [that reads in part]I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Jacobs’s oral promise to Hinkel regarding a severance package is “barred from consideration by the parol evidence rule.” Slip op. at 4. I do so for two reasons.

First, I believe that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the parties intended for Jacobs’s written job offer to Hinkel to be completely integrated, i.e., a “final and complete expression of all the parties’ agreements[.]” * * *

Second, the terms of the severance package do not vary from or contradict the terms of the written offer, but merely cover that which was not covered in the offer.2 As such, even assuming that the offer is completely integrated, the terms of the severance package would not be barred by the parol evidence rule.

In Erica Bishop v. The Housing Authority of South Bend , a 19-page opinion, Judge Darden writes:
Erica Bishop appeals the trial court's order that granted the Housing Authority of South Bend (“HASB”) prejudgment possession of the apartment unit she had leased from HASB. We affirm.

Issues:
1. Whether the order must be reversed because the trial court violated Bishop's right to a jury trial on the issue of immediate possession.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to issue a transportation order for Bishop's son Derek to testify at the hearing on immediate possession.
3. Whether the order of immediate possession must be reversed because HASB failed to follow U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) rules in its termination of Bishop' lease.
4. Whether Bishop's lease with HASB was illegal or unconscionable.
5. Whether the termination of Bishop's lease, given the facts presented, violated due process.

In Borovilos Restaurant Corporation, II v. Lutheran University Association, Inc. , a 12-page opinion, Judge Darden writes:
Borovilos Restaurant Corporation II (“Borovilos”) appeals the trial court’s order on its complaint against Lutheran University Association, Inc. (“Valparaiso University”) for a preliminary injunction, declaratory judgment, and damages. We affirm.

Issues:
1. Whether the trial court’s order must be reversed because it fails to acknowledge Borovilos’ legal easement rights.
2. Whether we should remand for a determination of monetary damages.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

James Witt d/b/a Witt Construction v. Nancy A. Thornton (NFP) - "The small claims court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence offered by Witt or in not advising Witt that he could cross-examine Thornton. Further, the small claims court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Affirmed."

NFP criminal opinions today (3):

Danny Floyd, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Coy Brindle v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jonathon Grieshop v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 1, 2010 11:10 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions