« Environment - "Rogers Group gains permit for proposed Americus quarry" | Main | Environment - "DC Circuit upholds Obama's crackdown on mountaintop mining" »

Friday, July 18, 2014

Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court Clears a Possible Minefield for Real Estate Sellers

Yesterday's Supreme Court opinion in Gayle Fischer v. Michael and Noel Heymann (ILB summary here) is the subject of a long post today by Michael Smith in the Indiana Business Law Blog, headed "Anticipatory Breach and Mitigation of Damages revisited: The Indiana Supreme Court Clears the Minefield." A sample:

When one party breaches a contract, the other party is entitled to damages sufficient to put the non-breaching party in the same position it would have occupied had the contract been performed. However, the non-breaching party must use reasonable efforts to mitigate the damages. This case illustrates the concept nicely. The original purchase price was $315,000. Sometime later, Fisher received, but rejected, an offer of $240,000. Ultimately, she sold it for $180,000. The trial court found (and the Supreme Court affirmed) that Fisher acted unreasonably when she rejected the offer of $240,000. Accordingly, the most she could recover was the difference between $315,000 and $240,000, not the difference between $315,000 and $180,000. The question, however, is whether the doctrine of mitigation of damages required Fisher to comply with the Heymans' demand to have the electrical problem fixed. If so, she would be able to recover only $117, the amount it cost her to fix the electrical problems. Last year, the Court of Appeals said yes.

Today, Supreme Court said no, agreeing with Judge Cale Bradford of the Court of Appeals. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Bradford reasoned that the doctrine of mitigation of damages does not require the non-breaching party to accede to a demand that creates a breach. The Supreme Court agreed with that reasoning and elaborated that, just as a non-breaching party may not put itself in a better position than it would have been had the contract been performed as agreed, neither can the breaching party. Here, the buyers agreed to pay $315,000 for a condo that had minor electrical problems (if tripped ground fault interrupters and burnt out light bulbs can be considered "problems"), and the seller was not obligated to sell them a condo with no electrical problems for the same price. Result: The Heymans owed Fisher not $117, but more than $90,000.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 18, 2014 10:47 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions