X hits on this document

PDF document

MARK A. URICK and HEATHER URICK, - page 15 / 19

45 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

15 / 19

Uricks further informed Huizinga that Heather was a CPA, which provided additional

assurance of the accuracy of the figures contained in the financial documents. We reject

the Uricks’ argument that Huizinga failed to exercise due diligence because, they argue,

Huizinga “never exercised his right to access [Blinds, Inc.’s] records” and “did not

attempt to verify Blinds[,] Inc.’s year-end profitability or taxable income[.]” Appellant’s

Brief at 21, 22. Pursuant to their operational arrangement, Heather was responsible for

inputting information regarding expenses and accounts payable into Blinds, Inc.’s

accounting

program.

Further,

the

Uricks

prevented

Huizinga

from

accessing

any

corporate tax returns. The trial court’s finding that Huizinga reasonably relied upon the

Uricks’ representations, therefore, is not clearly erroneous.

The final element is that the Uricks’ material misrepresentations proximately

caused Huizinga’s injury. “‘Proximate cause’ exists when there is ‘some direct relation

between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.’” Keesling, et al. v.

Beegle, et al., 858 N.E.2d 980, 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Raybestos Prod. Co. v.

Younger, et al., 54 F.2d 1234, 1243 (7th Cir. 1995)), trans. pending. The Uricks’ material

misrepresentations regarding the financial health of WFD, Inc. and Blinds, Inc. led

Huizinga to agree to pay $400,000 for Blinds, Inc., and to actually pay more than half of

that amount.

There was sufficient evidence of actual fraud and, therefore, the trial court did not

err in finding against Mark upon his claim of breach of contract and in favor of Huizinga

upon his claim of actual fraud. We need not address the Uricks’ contentions regarding

15

Document info
Document views45
Page views45
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 12:38:58 UTC 2016
Pages19
Paragraphs423
Words5616

Comments