Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitplaintiffattorneyappealtrialsummary judgmentcorporationquasi-contract

contractplaintiffattorneytrialsummary judgmentquasi-contract

Related Cases

Wright v. Pennamped, 657 N.E.2d 1223

Facts

Donald H. Wright, a self-employed general contractor, sought to refinance his apartment complex and engaged SCI Financial Corporation for a loan. After reviewing a proposal, Wright's attorney, Richard L. Brown, approved draft loan documents. However, last-minute changes were made to the documents without Brown's knowledge, and Wright signed them at closing without being informed of these changes. The final loan documents included a significantly higher prepayment penalty than what was initially proposed, leading Wright to file a lawsuit against the attorney and others involved in the transaction.

The facts most favorable to Wright, the nonmoving party, are as follows. Wright is a self-employed general contractor and real estate developer who lives in Beech Grove, Indiana. He owns and operates a sixty unit apartment complex in Beech Grove called the Diplomat Apartments.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the attorney on the claims of quasi-contract, actual fraud, and constructive fraud?

Wright raises four issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

Rule

To prevail on a claim of actual fraud, a plaintiff must establish that a false representation was made, which the plaintiff reasonably relied upon, and which caused harm. Constructive fraud does not require intent to deceive but is based on a duty owed by one party to another due to their relationship.

The elements of actual fraud are: (1) the fraud feasor must have made at least one representation of past or existing fact; (2) which was false; (3) which the fraud feasor knew to be false or made with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity; (4) upon which the plaintiff reasonably relied; (5) and which harmed the plaintiff.

Analysis

The court found that while Wright did not confer a benefit on Pennamped under quasi-contract, there were sufficient grounds to question the summary judgment regarding actual and constructive fraud. The attorney had a duty to disclose changes made to the loan documents, and Wright had a reasonable right to rely on the representations made by Pennamped. The court noted that the presence of fraudulent intent was a factual issue for the jury to determine.

By undertaking the tasks of a drafting attorney, including the distribution of draft loan documents and the solicitation of review and approval of the documents, Pennamped assumed a duty to disclose any changes in the documents prior to execution to the other parties or their respective counsel.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment regarding quasi-contract but reversed the judgment concerning actual and constructive fraud, remanding the case for further proceedings.

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Wright's claim for actual fraud.

Who won?

The attorney, Bruce M. Pennamped, prevailed on the quasi-contract claim because the court found no benefit conferred by Wright. However, the court's ruling on actual and constructive fraud was reversed, indicating that the attorney did not fully prevail.

We affirm the trial court's ruling with respect to quasi-contract. We reverse with respect to actual fraud and constructive fraud.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc., 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 208 Cal.Rptr. 494, 50 A.L.R.4th 913

Gilles v. Wiley, Malehorn & Sirota, 345 N.J.Super. 119, 783 A.2d 756

Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4, 130 S.Ct. 13, 175 L.Ed.2d 255, 78 USLW 3265, 78 USLW 3267, 78 USLW 4001, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,564, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,833, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 3

Dynamic 3D Geosolutions, LLC v. Schlumberger Ltd. (Schlumberger N.V.), Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2015 WL 4578681

Doe v. A Corp., 709 F.2d 1043