Opinion

Tobin v. Ruman

  • 819 N.E.2d 78
  • 2004 Ind. App. LEXIS 2457
  • 2004 WL 2820938
Court
Indiana Court of Appeals
Filed
Dec 9, 2004
Status
Published
Author
Kirsch
On the bench
Baker, Robb, Kirsch
Cited by
39 cases

holding oral contract that lasted twelve years was enforceable where it was possible that it could have been performed within one year

How later courts described this case

  • holding oral contract that lasted twelve years was enforceable where it was possible that it could have been performed within one year
  • concluding that evidence which “at best” established a breach of contract and then lying about that breach was insufficient to constitute fraud
  • evidence of alleged misrepresentations surrounding contract terms “merely establishes” breach of contract, but plaintiff “offered no evidence establishing that [defendants’] actions constitute the separate and independent tort of fraud”
  • “[T]he allegations making up his fraud claim amount to a series of misrepresentations stemming from and about the contract itself. At best, such evidence merely establishes that Ruman and RCH breached the oral contract . . . .”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

KIRSCH, Chief Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I fully concur in the decision of the majority as to all issues except for its holding that the alleged oral contract providing that the four one per cent equity owners would be equally compensated on an annual basis does not violate the Indiana State of Frauds. On such issue, I respectfully dissent.

Tobin alleges that there was an oral contract which provided that he would receive compensation equal to the other one per cent equity partners on an annual basis. Thus, the alleged provision calling for equal compensation was to remain in effect over a term of years. This provision speaks prospectively from that date of contracting and falls within the Statute of Frauds. Although the contract may have been terminated pursuant to the at-will employment provision at any time, the provision was to remain in effect until termination. Indeed, Tobin alleges that it applies to the entire twelve year period in which he was employed while an equity owner.

I would affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment on this issue.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.