concerning the profitability of this company and the P & L’s provided by Heather. In fact, you told me that you took a lot of cash for jobs and that the company was even more profitable than the Profit and Loss statements showed.
After I took over the books in 2001, I began to discover that the business was not as profitable as represented. In fact, after the books were reconciled, the business lost money in 2000. . . . The cash flow of the business is not sufficient to pay you. . . .
I asked Heather for copies of the business tax returns for the three years prior to my purchase last week. This was prompted by my loan application and the bank’s request for information about the profitability of the company before I purchased it. Heather refused to give me the returns because she said the returns would show a loss. Obviously, I was quite surprised because I had been told how profitable the business was.
Id. at 12 (sequentially, p.45). The following day, the Uricks replied with a faxed letter,
which stated, in relevant part: “You convinced us that you understood exactly what you
were buying, how much it would cost you, and how long you had to pay for it.” Id. at 13
Huizinga and the Uricks were unable to resolve their differences, and Huizinga
Huizinga and Blinds, Inc., alleging “Default and Acceleration[,]” “Breach of Pledge
Agreement[,]” “Breach of Guarantee Agreement[,]” and “Breach of Security
Agreement[.]” Appellant’s Appendix at 17, 18, 19. Thereafter, Huizinga and Blinds, Inc.
filed a counterclaim against Mark and a third-party complaint against Heather alleging
“Actual Fraud[,]” “Constructive Fraud[,]” “Breach of a Fiduciary Relationship[,]” and
“Unjust Enrichment[.]” Id. at 41, 48, 49. Following a bench trial held on April 26 and