Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Associates, Inc.

27 Citing cases

  1. Ball v. Versar, Inc., (S.D.Ind. 2003)

    Cause No. IP 01-0531-C H/K (S.D. Ind. Mar. 26, 2003)

    With respect to releases, the Indiana courts teach "that upholding releases serves an important public policy because it facilitates the orderly settlement of disputes." Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Associates, Inc., 780 N.E.2d 387, 392 (Ind.App. 2002), citing Prall v. Indiana Nat. Bank, 627 N.E.2d 1374, 1377 (Ind.App. 1994), in turn citing Indiana Bell Tel. Co. v. Mygrant, 471 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. 1984). "If judges could interpret a release to mean something that is contrary to the plain language because one party intended for it to mean something else, then parties would be discouraged from signing releases because they could not have confidence that a court would enforce the release's plain language."

  2. Kilburn-Winnie v. Town of Fortville

    1:15-cv-01784-RLY-DKL (S.D. Ind. Aug. 2, 2016)

    A release "is a species of contract that surrenders a claimant's right to prosecute a cause of action." Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Assocs., 780 N.E.2d 387, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Indiana courts generally "uphold releases as releases serve the important public policy of facilitating the orderly settlement of disputes."

  3. Schueck Steel Company v. Galvpro L.P., (S.D.Ind. 2003)

    CAUSE NO. NA 00-240-C H/K GP (S.D. Ind. May. 22, 2003)   Cited 2 times

    With respect to releases, the Indiana courts teach "that upholding releases serves an important public policy because it facilitates the orderly settlement of disputes." Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Associates, Inc., 780 N.E.2d 387, 392 (Ind.App. 2002), citing Prall v. Indiana Nat'l Bank, 627 N.E.2d 1374, 1377 (Ind.App. 1994), in turn citing Indiana Bell Tel. Co. v. Mygrant, 471 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. 1984). "If judges could interpret a release to mean something that is contrary to the plain language because one party intended for it to mean something else, then parties would be discouraged from signing releases because they could not have confidence that a court would enforce the release's plain language."

  4. Kruse v. National Bank of Indianapolis

    815 N.E.2d 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 31 times
    Observing that the appellant argued that ambiguities existed as to what debt he had guaranteed, that in construing the guarantee the court would give effect to the intentions of the parties as ascertained from the language of the contract in light of the surrounding circumstances, and that it was clear from the face of a loan agreement and a guaranty signed by the appellant that he had agreed to act as a guarantor of certain indebtedness, and rejecting the claim by the appellant that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to what debt he guaranteed

    On appeal, the trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment is clothed with a presumption of validity, and the party that lost in the trial court has the burden of persuading the appellate tribunal that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous. Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Assocs., Inc., 780 N.E.2d 387, 391 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002). We do not reweigh the evidence, but we liberally construe all designated evidentiary material in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

  5. Dick Corp. v. Geiger

    783 N.E.2d 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 19 times
    Construing mutual release and payment provisions in change order

    Our courts have consistently expressed their commitment to advancing the public policy supporting the enforcement of contracts. Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Assoc's Inc., 780 N.E.2d 387, 391 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (citing Trimble v. Ameritech Publ'g, Inc., 700 N.E.2d 1128, 1129 (Ind. 1998); Fresh Cut, Inc. v. Fazli, 650 N.E.2d 1126, 1129 (Ind. 1995); Candlelight Props. LLC v. MHC Operating Ltd. P'ship, 750 N.E.2d 1, 10 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001), trans. dismissed).

  6. BMD Contractors, Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md.

    679 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 43 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Indiana surety law is "quite clear sureties are generally liable only where the principal itself is liable"

    As a preliminary matter, Indiana has a strong background presumption favoring freedom of contract. See Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Assocs., Inc., 780 N.E.2d 387, 392 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (“[A]s a general rule, the law allows competent adults the utmost liberty in entering into contracts that, when entered into freely and voluntarily, will be enforced by the courts.”). Indiana courts will not enforce contracts that violate state statutes, but they will not find a violation “ ‘unless the language of the implicated statute is clear and unambiguous that the legislature intended that the courts not be available for either party to enforce a bargain made in violation thereof.’ ” Shelly & Sands, 756 N.E.2d at 1073 (quoting Cont'l Basketball Ass'n, Inc. v. Ellenstein Enters., Inc., 669 N.E.2d 134, 140 (Ind.1996)).

  7. BMD Contractors, Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland

    No. 11-1345 (7th Cir. May. 11, 2012)

    As a preliminary matter, Indiana has a strong background presumption favoring freedom of contract. See Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Assocs., Inc., 780 N.E.2d 387, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) ("[A]s a general rule, the law allows competent adults the utmost liberty in entering into contracts that, when entered into freely and voluntarily, will be enforced by the courts."). Indiana courts will not enforce contracts that violate state statutes, but they will not find a violation " 'unless the language of the implicated statute is clear and unambiguous that the legislature intended that the courts not be available for either party to enforce a bargain made in violation thereof.

  8. Latitude Serv. Co. v. Reese

    3:21-CV-728-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind. Sep. 30, 2024)

    “Indiana courts have a lengthy tradition of recognizing and respecting the freedom to contract.” Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Assocs., Inc., 780 N.E.2d 387, 391 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002). “Therefore, as a general rule, the law allows competent adults the utmost liberty in entering into contracts that, when entered into freely and voluntarily, will be enforced by the courts.” Id.

  9. Snyder v. Mercedes-Benz U.S., LLC

    3:21-CV-648-MGG (N.D. Ind. Aug. 11, 2022)

    See Holmes v. Potter, 552 F.3d 536, 539 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Dillard v. Starcon Int'l, 483 F.3d 502, 508 (7th Cir. 2007) (“a settlement of a federal claim is enforced ‘just like any other contract' under the state law of contract”)). Under Indiana law, a “release agreement is a species of contract that surrenders a claimant's right to prosecute a cause of action.” Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Assocs., 780 N.E.2d 387, 392 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002). Release agreements are “interpreted in the same manner as any other contract document, with the intention of the parties regarding the purpose of the document governing.” Huffman v. Monroe Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 588 N.E.2d 1264, 1267 (Ind. 1992).

  10. Apex Compounding Pharmacy LLC v. Best Transp. Servs.

    CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-73-TLS (N.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Such releases are generally enforceable, see Dick Corp. v. Geiger, 783 N.E.2d 368, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) ("There is a very strong presumption of enforceability of contracts representing the freely bargained agreement of the parties." (citing Zollman v. Geneva Leasing Assoc's, Inc., 780 N.E.2d 387, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002))); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 346 cmt. a (1981) ("A duty to pay damages may be suspended or discharged by agreement or otherwise, and if it is discharged the claim for damages is extinguished."), and nothing before the Court suggests that the release contained in the Defendant's terms and conditions of service should not be enforced. The terms and conditions of service would have been seen by the Plaintiff during the course of the parties' business relationship, and accepting the terms and conditions of service was a prerequisite for submitting orders on the Defendant's online portal.