Scott Tod v. Indy Goldmine, LLC (mem. dec.)

Citation: Not availableDocket: 49A04-1609-CT-2157

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; May 9, 2017; Indiana; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A Memorandum Decision filed on May 9, 2017, in the Court of Appeals of Indiana addresses the appeal of Scott Tod against Indy Goldmine, LLC (d/b/a IG Home Improvements) and Aaron McGee, following a ruling from the Marion Superior Court. Tod, the appellant, had entered into a contract with IG for home renovations, including a roof replacement, but later hired another contractor to complete the roof work, breaching the contract. Tod sued IG for breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment, while IG counterclaimed for breach of contract.

During the proceedings, Tod served requests for admissions on IG, which were not timely responded to, leading to their automatic establishment. These admissions included acknowledgment of payments totaling $21,000 for incomplete work and that Tod received limited value from the renovations. Despite this, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, awarding them $8,987.50 in damages. Tod appealed, arguing that the admissions should have entitled him to judgment. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the admissions did not automatically grant Tod a judgment in his favor.

Request for Admissions Nos. 5 through 8 assert the following: 1) no single document exists that outlines the agreement terms between the parties; 2) no single document lists all services IG was to provide to the Plaintiff; 3) IG or its agents damaged a water pipe on the Plaintiff's property; and 4) IG did not provide goods or services exceeding $10,000. Defendants responded untimely to these admissions on July 14, 2016, leading to their admissions being deemed conclusively established. On August 24, 2016, the trial court denied Defendants' motion to withdraw these admissions and subsequently ruled against the Plaintiff, entering judgment in favor of Defendants on their breach-of-contract counterclaim for $8,987.50. 

The Plaintiff argued that Defendants' admissions necessitated judgment in his favor, while Defendants contended that judgment for them remained valid despite the admissions. The trial court’s judgment lacked specific findings, prompting appellate review under the assumption that the trial court adhered to legal standards. The appellate review affirmed the trial court's decision if supported by any evidence consistent with the facts.

The Plaintiff claimed that Defendants' admissions established their liability; however, the court found that these admissions did not preclude the possibility of the Plaintiff’s breach of contract. Evidence indicated that the Defendants' failure to perform was linked to the Plaintiff’s breach, specifically when the Plaintiff hired another contractor in violation of the contract terms. The trial court was not obligated to accept the Plaintiff’s justification for his actions.

Defendants demonstrated substantial performance under the contract, with their failure to complete the project attributed to Tod's breach. There is no specific metric to define substantial performance in a building contract, as established in Johnson v. Taylor Bldg. Corp. Defendants initiated work on the project in November 2014, focusing on a roof replacement, and completed several tasks, including installing deck railings, handrails, and addressing mold issues. Despite efforts to fulfill the roofing requirement, including researching metal roof options after Tod's change in preference, Tod hired another contractor and terminated the contract, which Defendants argued prevented them from completing their obligations. The court found sufficient evidence supporting Defendants' readiness to perform, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment in their favor. Additionally, Tod did not contest the damages awarded to Defendants, totaling $8,987.50 after accounting for previously paid amounts.