X hits on this document

PDF document

MARK A. URICK and HEATHER URICK, - page 11 / 19





11 / 19

27, 2005, the trial court found against Mark upon his claims against Huizinga and Blinds,

Inc., and found in favor of Huizinga and Blinds, Inc. upon their counterclaim and third-

party claim against Mark and Heather, respectively. The Uricks appeal and Huizinga and

Blinds, Inc. cross-appeal. Further facts will be included as necessary.

The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law sua sponte and,

therefore, we apply the following two-tier standard of review: Whether the evidence

supports the findings; and whether the findings support the judgment. Butler Univ. v.

Estate of Verdak, 815 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Findings of fact and conclusions

of law will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. Findings and conclusions

are clearly erroneous when the record contains no facts or inferences supporting them.

Id. “‘A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm

conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Id. at 190 (quoting Learman v. Auto Owners

Ins. Co., 769 N.E.2d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied). We consider only

the evidence favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom,

and we will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the witnesses’ credibility. Butler

Univ. v. Estate of Verdak, 815 N.E.2d 185. Findings entered sua sponte control only the

issues they cover, and a general judgment standard of review controls issues upon which

there are no findings. Id. “A general judgment will be affirmed if it can be sustained on

any legal theory supported by the evidence.” Id. at 190-91.


The Uricks initially contend the trial court erred by not entering judgment in their

favor on the breach of contract claims, arguing “Mark’s proof of the[] elements [of the 11

Document info
Document views34
Page views34
Page last viewedWed Oct 26 21:43:55 UTC 2016