Opinion
24A-EU-650
10-18-2024
Kevin and Mary Leach, Appellants-Claimants v. Estate of Georgia M. Lock, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS Michael H. Michmerhuizen Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Elizabeth A. Deckard Columbia City, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Whitley Circuit Court The Honorable Matthew J. Rentschler, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 92C01-2208-EU-67
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS Michael H. Michmerhuizen Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Elizabeth A. Deckard Columbia City, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ALTICE, CHIEF JUDGE.
Case Summary
[¶1] Kevin and Mary Leach (collectively, the Leaches) appeal the order of ejectment and possession entered in favor of the Estate of Georgia Lock (the Estate), claiming that the trial court erred in determining that the Leaches were required to vacate certain real property (the Property) that Lock previously owned. The Leaches maintain that the trial court should have enforced a contract that they executed with Lock for their purchase of the Property.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] The undisputed facts are that Mary Leach-the daughter of the decedent, Lock-is married to Kevin Leach. Lock owned the Property in Larwill, Indiana, and the Leaches lived with her on the Property for over ten years, along with their daughter, Anika, and their grandchildren.
[¶4] At some point, Lock moved from the Property to a nearby apartment, while the Leaches and other family members remained there. After Lock moved, the Leaches started paying Lock's $850 monthly apartment rent and amounts due on a home equity loan. After making several monthly rent payments and home equity loan payments, the Leaches and Anika executed a written agreement (the Agreement) with Lock on December 5, 2021, stating
We . . . has [sic] an agreement set up for . . . us to buy the property at 7275 West Us Highway 30, Larwill, in [sic] from Georgia Lock. The agreement was for us to buy the property by paying her rent at her apartment at 205 church hill down apt #24, in the amount of 850.00 per month.
[We] ... will also pay the balance of the home equity loan each month. We also have the arrangements set up when Georgia Lock passes away that we will keep paying the balance of the home equity loan.Petitioner's Exhibit A. The Agreement was signed by Lock, the Leaches, and Anika.
One other individual signed the Agreement but did not assert a claim to the Property.
[¶5] Lock died on January 29, 2022, at age 82. Her will identified Mary, Karen Bartley (Mary's sister), and three others as devisees. Bartley, as personal representative of the Estate, filed a verified petition for unsupervised administration on August 5, 2022. Thereafter, the Leaches and Anika filed a claim for the Property, citing the Agreement as an enforceable contract for the sale of the Property. Following a hearing on August 18, 2023, the trial court denied the Leaches' claim and entered the following order:
Horizon Bank, Lock's original personal representative, resigned and nominated Bartley to serve as the successor personal representative.
2. As evidence of [the Leaches'] claim, a document is provided which is attached to this order as Exhibit A. The document described four people (including the three making the claim) "buy"ing the property in exchange for paying the rent on
[Lock's] apartment in the amount of $850 per month and "paying the balance of the home equity loan each month." The document was allegedly executed on December 5, 2021.
3. Fourteen rent payments and two payments towards the home equity loan were made totaling $20,448.41. Of that amount, $14,418.41 amounted to payments towards the home equity loan.
4. The estate had the real estate at issue appraised and its value is $150,000.
5. The Court is asked to decide whether the real estate should be considered to have been sold and therefore not an asset of the estate, or rather, an estate asset subject to distribution.
6. The Court finds that it would not be reasonable or equitable to characterize the transaction that occurred as a sale. Purchasing a $150,000 asset for a little more than $20,000 fails the test of fairness, and there is no evidence of the intention to gift the equity in the real estate to the claimants.
7. Instead, it appears that Lock permitted these persons to rent or rent-to-own her home in exchange for the consideration of rent payment towards her apartment.
8. The Court finds if the claimants desire to purchase the real estate, they are entitled to credit towards purchasing the home.
9. The Personal Representative requests permission to offer the real estate for sale to the claimants at the appraised price of $150,000 minus their $20,448.41 in payments. The Court now approves this disposition and grants the claimants sixty days from the date of this offer to negotiate a purchase of the real estate if they so desire and if they are able.Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 8-9 (emphases added).
Although the fourteen monthly rent payments and the home equity loan payments appear to exceed $20,448.41, the amounts set forth in the order are those that the Leaches submitted to the trial court. See Petitioner's Exhibit B.
[¶6] Following a subsequent hearing, the trial court granted the Leaches until February 1, 2024, to arrange for financing. If financing was not obtained, the trial court determined that "the renters shall be evicted from the home on March 1, 2024." Id. at 10. When the Leaches did not acquire financing, the trial court issued a judgment for ejectment and possession on March 6, 2024, ordering the Leaches to surrender possession of the Property by March 21, 2024.
The trial court granted the Leaches' motion to stay the March 6, 2024 judgment pending the resolution of this appeal.
Discussion and Decision
[¶8] In this case, we must decide whether the trial court properly determined that the Agreement was a lease rather than an enforceable contract for the sale of the Property. Because the interpretation of a contract presents a question of law, "it is reviewed de novo by this court." Steak N Shake Operations, Inc. v. Nat'l Waste Assocs., LLC, 177 N.E.3d 816, 830 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021). The goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the parties' intent as reasonably manifested by the language of the agreement. Decker v. Star Fin. Grp., Inc., 204 N.E.3d 918, 920-21 (Ind. 2023). When we interpret a contract,
we ascertain the intent of the parties at the time the contract was made, as disclosed by the language used to express the parties' rights and duties. We look at the contract as a whole ... and we accept an interpretation of the contract that harmonizes all its provisions. A contract's clear and unambiguous language is given its ordinary meaning. A contract should be construed so as to not render any words, phrases, or terms ineffective or meaningless.Ryan v. TCI Architects/Eng'rs/Cont'rs, Inc., 72 N.E.3d 908, 914 (Ind. 2017) (internal citations omitted).
[¶9] A valid contract must contain an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a meeting of the minds. Paul Terrault &Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Scheere, 200 N.E.3d 490, 495 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022). And to be enforceable, a contract must be reasonably definite and certain. Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Mktg. Grp., Inc., 906 N.E.2d 805, 813 (Ind. 2009). Although a contract need not declare a specific dollar amount to be enforceable, the amounts and prices must be fixed or "subject to some ascertainable formula or standard" that is set out with certainty. Zukerman v. Montgomery, 945 N.E.2d 813, 819 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011) (emphasis added).
[¶10] Our Statute of Frauds provision, Ind. Code § 32-21-1-1, requires an enforceable contract for the sale of land to be evidenced by some writing "(1) which has been signed by the party against whom the contract is to be enforced or his authorized agent; (2) which describes with reasonable certainty each party and the land; and (3) which states with reasonable certainty the terms and conditions of the promises and by whom the promises were made." Knapp v. Estate of Wright, 76 N.E.3d 900, 907 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017), trans. denied.
[¶11] Here, the Agreement identifies the parties and the Property, and it is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. (the Estate). There is, however, no mention of an agreed-upon purchase price for the transfer of the Property; nor is a date provided as to when the transfer of the Property would occur. And while the Agreement specifies the terms as to how the Leaches were to make payments toward purchasing the Property, i.e., that they were to pay Lock's $850 monthly rent and the balance of the home equity loan, the Agreement makes no mention at all of a purchase price in exchange for the transfer of the Property. To be sure, the Leaches acknowledge that the purchase price for the Property was not $20,000, yet they offer no alternative amount. And even though an exact "dollars and cents" amount is not required to be set forth in the Agreement for the sale of the Property, see Zukerman, 945 N.E.2d at 819, there is no ascertainable formula set forth in the Agreement for determining the Property's purchase price.
[¶12] In sum, the Agreement lacks the essential elements for a contract for the purchase of real estate. Thus, the Agreement is not an enforceable contract for the Leaches' purchase of the Property. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly entered a judgment for ejectment and possession of the Property in favor of the Estate.
[¶13] Judgment affirmed.
Bailey, J. and Mathias, J., concur.