# Tobin v. Ruman

> Indiana Court of Appeals · December 9, 2004 · 819 N.E.2d 78

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705990

## Case

- **Full name:** William H. TOBIN, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Saul I. RUMAN and Ruman Clements & Holub, P.C. F/K/A Ruman Clements Tobin & Holub, P.C. F/K/A Ruman Clements & Tobin, P.C., Appellees-Defendants
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 9, 2004
- **Citations:** 819 N.E.2d 78; 2004 Ind. App. LEXIS 2457; 2004 WL 2820938
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Kirsch
- **Judges:** Baker, Robb, Kirsch
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705990

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705990. Public record. Not legal advice.