X hits on this document

PDF document

MARK A. URICK and HEATHER URICK, - page 2 / 19

48 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

2 / 19

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge

Mark A. Urick filed a complaint against George H. Huizinga, Jr. and Blinds, Inc.,

d/b/a Window Fashion Design (collectively, Huizinga), alleging breach of contract.

Huizinga filed a counterclaim against Mark and a third-party complaint against Mark’s

wife, Heather P. Urick (also referred to as Heather Pons)(collectively, the Uricks),

alleging actual and constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary relationship, and unjust

enrichment.

Following

a

bench

trial,

the

trial

court

granted

judgment

in

favor

of

Huizinga on both Mark’s complaint and Huizinga’s counterclaim and third-party

complaint. The Uricks appeal and raise the following restated issues:

  • 1.

    Was there sufficient evidence to support the finding of actual fraud?

  • 2.

    Was the trial court’s damages award erroneous?1

We affirm.2

The facts favorable to the ruling are that Mark was the president and sole

shareholder of Window Fashion Design, Inc. (WFD, Inc.), an S corporation formed in

1 Huizinga cross-appeals and raises the same issue (i.e., whether the trial court’s damages award was erroneous). We will address both contentions simultaneously.

2 The Uricks failed to include a copy of the trial court’s order in their brief, as required by Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(10)(“[t]he brief shall include any written opinion, memorandum of decision or findings of fact and conclusions thereon relating to the issues raised on appeal”). We remind counsel that “‘[t]he purpose of the appellate rules, especially Ind. Appellate Rule 46, is to aid and expedite review, as well as to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case[,]’” Neptune v. Ogan, 858 N.E.2d 696, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Sheperd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)), and of the possible consequences of failure to conform with the rules of appellate procedure. See, e.g., Payday Today, Inc. v. McCullough, 841 N.E.2d 638, 640 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (“we decline to consider Appellee’s Brief as it does not address the contentions raised in the Appellant’s Brief and fails to conform to numerous provisions of Indiana Appellate Rule 46”).

2

Document info
Document views48
Page views48
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 21:44:39 UTC 2016
Pages19
Paragraphs423
Words5616

Comments