X hits on this document

PDF document

MARK A. URICK and HEATHER URICK, - page 18 / 19

43 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

18 / 19

it (Blinds, Inc.) was worth dramatically less than was represented by the Uricks. The trial

court, therefore, did not err by finding that Huizinga sustained only the aforementioned

“compensatory damages” and not ordering the Uricks to reimburse Huizinga for the

outstanding

debt

and

expenditures

incurred

in

operating

Blinds,

Inc.

Appellant’s

Appendix at 11. See A.J.’s Auto. Sales, Inc. v. Freet, 725 N.E.2d at 970 (“rescission of

the contract is incompatible with general or compensatory damages”).

Conversely, the Uricks contend the trial court’s damages award was excessive

because, “[b]y awarding [Huizinga] all monies he paid under the [agreements], the trial

court effectively rescinded the Note and Loan Documents.” Appellant’s Brief at 31. As

we concluded above, Huizinga did not seek to, and the trial court did not, rescind the

contract. Huizinga neither pled nor argued for contract rescission, and the trial court

made no mention of rescission in its findings or conclusions. The trial court made the

following findings regarding damages:

5. Huizinga sustained the following compensatory damages:

  • a down payment in the amount of $50,000.00;

  • payments made in 2001 in the total amount [of] $80,857.15 ($7,350.65/month x 11 months);

  • payment made in the first eleven months of 2002 in the amount of $80,857.15 ($7,350.65/month x 11 months);

  • payments made in December 2002 and January 2003 in the total amount of $10,098.10 (the modified payment of $5,049.05/month x 2 months); and

  • lost use of the payments Huizinga made to [Mark], a loss that accrued when Huizinga first demanded repayment of his funds with the filing of his Counterclaim and Third-party Complaint in this cause on July 14, 2004.

18

Document info
Document views43
Page views43
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 22:55:27 UTC 2016
Pages19
Paragraphs423
Words5616

Comments