« Ind. Gov't. - Intelenet problems apparently not limited to Indiana | Main | Ind. Courts - Commission recommends removal of judge »

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals posts two today

Donald R. Coleman v. Alliance, LLC (4/12/05 IndCtApp) [Highlighted]
Vaidik, Judge

Predrag Vukovich worked for Donald Coleman at International Magnaproducts, Inc. (IMI), Coleman’s company. With Coleman’s blessing, Vukovich left to set up a new company, which serviced some of IMI’s customers. As he began to attract new business, Vukovich refused to sign a covenant not to compete that would have allowed Coleman to sell IMI, and his refusal nixed the sale. This dispute led to three lawsuits presenting multiple claims. First, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Vukovich on Coleman’s claim that Vukovich should have signed the covenant not to compete. Vukovich had no legal duty to sign. Second, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Vukovich on Coleman’s claim that Vukovich unlawfully misappropriated trade secrets. The customer information in dispute was not a trade secret. Third, we reverse in part the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to Vukovich on Coleman’s claim that Vukovich converted or trespassed on Coleman’s chattel and for replevin. Vukovich is entitled to summary judgment as to the RPMS software he allegedly copied, but Coleman and IMI may still maintain an action relating to conversion, trespass, or replevin relating to customer files, a rotary file, and a laptop computer. * * *

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
KIRSCH, C.J. and NAJAM, J., concur.

Deborah H. Walton v. Claybridge Homeowners Assoc., Inc. (4/12/05 IndCtApp) [Attorney Fees]
Riley, Judge
* * * In 2000, Walton purchased a lot in a subdivision known as Claybridge at Springmill, in Hamilton County. At that time, the developer had already constructed an entryway wall and wood fence on Walton’s lot and landscaped around them as permitted by certain easements. Pursuant to a declaration of covenants and restrictions (DCR), to which Walton’s lot was subject, the HOA was required to maintain the easements and any plantings on them and maintain and replace fences within any landscape easement on an owner’s lot. Walton, however, prevented the HOA from performing its obligations.

As a result, the HOA sought a permanent injunction against Walton. The trial court, finding that Walton had interfered with the HOA’s obligation to maintain the easements, granted the HOA’s request. Having concluded that the HOA was entitled to injunctive relief, the trial court then concluded that, pursuant to Section 17 of the DCR, the HOA was a prevailing party “entitled to recover all costs of enforcement and attorney fees incurred . . . .” The trial court further concluded that the HOA was permitted to “request a hearing on its costs, attorney fees and other damages, if any.” * * *

Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err when it awarded appellate attorney fees and costs. Because the issue of appellate attorney fees was not considered by this court in its prior appellate opinion, it is not the law of the case. With regard to costs incurred on appeal, the provision of the DCR awarding a prevailing party “all costs of enforcement,” and not Appellate Rule 67, governed the HOA’s recovery. The trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs to the HOA for preparing and defending the fee petition was also not erroneous. The provision of the DCR awarding the HOA attorney fees did not violate public policy and Walton has failed to show that the amount awarded was unreasonable. Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and ROBB, J., concur.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 12, 2005 01:49 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions