The Department of Natural Resources is not involved in this case. Cf.Cowper v. Collier , 720 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (case against timber buyer held before an administrative law judge), reh'g denied , trans. denied. Karimi does not argue she has a private cause of action to enforce the provisions in Indiana Code chapter 25-36.5-1.
The Department of Natural Resources is not involved in this case. Cf. Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) (case against timber buyer held before an administrative law judge), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Karimi does not argue she has a private cause of action to enforce the provisions in Indiana Code chapter 25-36.5-1.
Further, Indiana has long allowed contracting parties to enter into any agreement they desire so long as it is not illegal or against public policy. Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999). When reviewing a contract on appeal, our standard of review is also well settled. If the language of the instrument is unambiguous, the intent of the parties is determined from its four corners.
NIPSCO advocates that we apply a de novo standard because the case involves summary judgment and a question of law. (Appellant's Br. at 7-8.) It cites two recent Court of Appeals opinions reviewing decisions of the Commission de novo: Ind. Bell Tel. Co. v. Time Warner Commc'ns of Ind., LP., 786904 N.E.2d 301 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003), and Cowper v. Collier, 720904 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), trans. denied, 735904 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. 2000). (Opposition to Transfer at 6-7.)
The Cowper Court stated that "the law is the province of the judiciary and the reviewing court is not bound by an agency's conclusions of law" and "the parties' contract dispute was not a matter requiring the weighing of extrinsic evidence but rather was contained by its four corners, the interpretation and construction of which is a function for the court." Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255-56 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) (citations omitted), trans. denied? Here, the IURC was explicit that it made its decision as a matter of law, employing only principles of contract interpretation.
Rather, the law is the province of the judiciary. Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), reh'g denied, trans. denied.
As a general rule, the law allows persons of full age and competent understanding the utmost liberty in contracting. Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), trans. denied.
The law is the province of the judiciary. Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), reh'g denied, trans. denied. I. "Aggrieved or Adversely Affected" for Administrative Review
This type of determination is particularly suited for a trial court, not a jury. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. American Nat'l Ins. Co., 779 N.E.2d 62, 66 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) ("[i]nterpretation of the language in a contract is a question of law especially suited for summary judgment proceedings"); Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) ("[i]t is only where a contract is ambiguous and its interpretation requires extrinsic evidence that the fact finder must determine the facts upon which the contract rests"), trans. denied.
Ameritech asks us to review the IURC's decision de novo, because it concerned the interpretation of a contract and thus addressed a pure question of law requiring no deference to the administrative agency. See Cowper v. Collier, 720 N.E.2d 1250, 1255 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999),trans. denied (2000).