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