may not be based upon representations of future conduct, broken promises, or
representations of existing intent that are not executed. Bilimoria Computer Sys., LLC v.
Am. Online, Inc., 829 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
The first element is that the Uricks made a material representation of past or
existing fact. This element was clearly satisfied because the Uricks represented, among
other things, the profitability of WFD, Inc. and Blinds, Inc. by their submission to
Huizinga of the financial documents of each company. Regarding the second element,
i.e., falsity, the trial court found that “Ms. Urick, with Mr. Urick’s knowledge, consent,
direction, and assistance, materially misrepresented the profitability of Window Fashion
Design and/or the profitability of Blinds, Inc.” Appellant’s Appendix at 7. The Uricks
provided Huizinga with WFD, Inc.’s profit and loss statements from 1997 through 1999,
and stated that the figures were final. The profit and loss statements represented that
WFD, Inc. had a net income of $37,484.11 in 1997, $125,931.43 in 1998, and
$124,864.61 in 1999. WFD, Inc.’s tax returns for the corresponding years, however,
show it had a loss of $13,245 in 1997, a loss of $8,075 in 1998, and a loss of $4,917.14 in
1999. We cannot say, therefore, the trial court’s finding regarding the falsity of the
Uricks’ representations was clearly erroneous.
The third requirement is that the material misrepresentation was made with
knowledge or reckless ignorance of its falsity, which the trial court so found. The Uricks
misrepresented to Huizinga the profitability of WFD, Inc. by maintaining that it had a net
profit in 1997, 1998, and 1999 when, in fact, WFD, Inc. had a net loss during those years.