Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC

17 Citing cases

  1. Entertainment USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Communications, Inc.

    93 F. Supp. 3d 915 (N.D. Ind. 2015)   Cited 10 times
    Applying Indiana law

    “Generally, an action for an accounting is a proceeding in equity and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1076 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (citations omitted). An action for an accounting has the purpose of adjusting the account of the litigants and of rendering complete justice in a single action.

  2. Southard v. Keltner Prop. Grp.

    150 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Rules of contract construction and extrinsic evidence may be employed in giving effect to the parties' reasonable expectations. Id. at 444-445 (citing Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC , 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Johnson v. Johnson , 920 N.E.2d 253, 256 (Ind. 2010) ), reh'g denied , trans. denied ). When a contract's terms are ambiguous or uncertain and its interpretation requires extrinsic evidence, its construction is a matter for the finder of fact.

  3. HLH Consulting, LLC v. Burd Auto., Inc.

    146 N.E.3d 1051 (Ind. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    [13] The contemporaneous document doctrine provides that "[i]n the absence of anything to indicate a contrary intention, writings executed at the same time and relating to the same transaction will be construed together in determining the contract.’ " Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC , 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied . In addition to being executed at the same time, the writings must relate ‘to the same transaction or subject-matter’ to be construed together as a contract.

  4. Larry J. Jernas & R&R Horse Haven, Inc. v. Gumz

    53 N.E.3d 434 (Ind. App. 2016)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that the street address of the property to be purchased was an essential element of a real estate contract

    [22] If a contract's terms are clear and unambiguous, courts must give those terms their clear and ordinary meaning. Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1064 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (citing Dunn v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 249, 252 (Ind.2005) ), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Courts should interpret a contract so as to harmonize its provisions, rather than place them in conflict.

  5. First Fed. Bank of the Midwest v. Greenwalt

    42 N.E.3d 89 (Ind. App. 2015)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that a person who furnishes collateral to secure the loan of another or mortgages the person's land to secure another's debt is a surety

    Id. They merely aid our review by providing us with a statement of reasons for the trial court's actions. Id.[19] To the extent we must interpret the Note and Mortgage, we observe that interpretation of a contract is a pure question of law and is reviewed de novo. Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1064 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (citing Dunn v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 249, 251 (Ind.2005) ), reh'g denied, trans. denied; see also Coleman v. Witherspoon, 76 Ind. 285, 287 (1881) (“A mortgage is a contract....”). If a contract's terms are clear and unambiguous, courts must give those terms their clear and ordinary meaning.

  6. Entm't U.S., Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns, Inc.

    897 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2018)   Cited 19 times
    Noting Indiana law requires a plaintiff to prove its damages with reasonable certainty

    Because this was a request for an equitable remedy, we review its denial by the district court for an abuse of discretion. ABM Marking, Inc. v. Zanasi Fratelli, S.R.L. , 353 F.3d 541, 544–45 (7th Cir. 2003), citing EEOC v. Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO, Local 100 , 49 F.3d 304, 307 (7th Cir. 1995) ; see also Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC , 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1076 (Ind. App. 2013) ("Generally, an action for an accounting is a proceeding in equity and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court."), citing Atwood v. Prairie Village Inc. , 401 N.E.2d 97, 100 (Ind. App. 1980), and 1 I.L.E. Accounts and Accounting § 1.

  7. LeSEA, Inc. v. Lesea Broad. Corp.

    No. 3:18CV914-PPS/MGG (N.D. Ind. Mar. 5, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    In one of the decisions cited by LeSEA on this point, the late Judge Rudy Lozano of this court observed that an action for an accounting "'is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.'" Entertainment USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Communications, Inc., 93 F.Supp.3d 915, 933 (N.D.Ind. 2015), quoting Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1076 (Ind.Ct.App. 2013). Recognizing that "[a] court may refuse to award an equitable accounting to a party who has an adequate remedy at law," Judge Lozano denied summary judgment on a claim for an accounting, finding that it was premature to decide the accounting claim because there existed genuine issues of material fact about the accounts at issue.

  8. Entm't USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns, Inc.

    CAUSE NO. 1:12-cv-116 RLM (N.D. Ind. Aug. 9, 2017)

    An action for an accounting is an equitable proceeding intended to adjust the litigants' account and render complete justice in a single action. Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1076 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). "[T]o maintain such a suit on a cause of action cognizable at law, as this one is, the plaintiff must be able to show that the accounts between the parties are of such a complicated nature that only a court of equity can satisfactorily unravel them."

  9. Miller v. WesBanco Bank, Inc.

    859 S.E.2d 306 (W. Va. 2021)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that, to the extent a lump-sum jury award may contain unrecoverable damages and apportionment of damages is subject to speculation, the award is found to be against the clear weight of the evidence and will be reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages

    (quotations and citation omitted)); Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC , 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) ("Even if documents are executed at different times, they may still be construed together as long as they relate to the same transaction."); Hollenbeck v. Household Bank , 250 Kan. 747, 829 P.2d 903, 906 (1992) ("Documents which are executed at different times, but in the course of the same transaction concerning the same subject matter, will be construed together to determine the intent of the parties to the contract.");

  10. Miller v. WesBanco Bank

    No. 20-0041 (W. Va. Jun. 10, 2021)

    Montgomery Roofing Co. v. FredHowland, Inc., 98 So. 2d 484, 486 (Fla. 1957) ("While the situation does not fall strictly within the rule that where an agreement is evidenced by two or more writings, the writings must be construed together, it has been said that [t]his rule is not necessarily confined to instruments executed at the same time by the same parties for the same purpose; instruments entered into on different days, but concerning the same subject matter, may under some circumstances be regarded as one contract and interpreted together." (quotations and citation omitted)); Lily, Inc. v. Silco, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1055, 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) ("Even if documents are executed at different times, they may still be construed together as long as they relate to the same transaction."); Hollenbeck v. Household Bank, 829 P.2d 903, 906 (Kan. 1992) ("Documents which are executed at different times, but in the course of the same transaction concerning the same subject matter, will be construed together to determine the intent of the parties to the contract."); Hous. Mortg. Corp. v. Allied Constr. Inc., 97 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. 1953) (acknowledging the terms of an agreement may be expressed in two or more separate documents and stating that "[t]his is true whether the documents are all executed by a single party or by two or more parties, and whether some of the documents are executed by parties who have no part in executing the others" (emphasis omitted)); Baker v. Wilburn, 456 N.W.2d 304, 306 (S.D. 1990) ("Where several writings are connected by internal references to each other, even if they were executed on different dates and were