We’re Growing!

Boutique business and commercial law firm seeks an associate attorney with 1-3 years of experience in litigation or commercial law who can hit the ground running.  This position may also include real estate, bankruptcy and transactional work.  We want an attorney who is looking to be part of a team environment, who understands that more hands make the load lighter and is interested in helping us grow.  We expect a lawyer who knows that communication is vital to our success and is capable of communicating effectively.  We hope to find a person who wants to be a long-term member of our team and can grow with us.  If you are interested in this position, please email your resume and a writing sample to the firm administrator at sclark@bbrlawpc.com.  Please also send a cover letter including salary history and desired compensation. Required Skills & Experience Have a valid license to practice law in Indiana – currently in good standing with the Bar. Be professional, courteous and accommodating to client, staff and co-workers. Have excellent verbal and written communication skills. Have the ability to thrive in a fast-paced environment. Possess strong negotiation skills. Provide sounds counsel and judgment on legal questions or issues. Take responsibility for court appearances, motions, depositions, mediations, negotiations and trial...

DIY: Not Always the Best Plan

        DIY: Not Always the Best Plan     There are many things that I could pay to have someone do that I do myself. Many people pay to have yard work done, but I rather enjoy it, plus being a healthy person who loves the outdoors I cannot justify paying someone to do the work I am perfectly capable of doing myself.             Other things, however, are things I gladly pay someone to do because I know that because of their years of professional training they will be able to do the job effectively and correctly and I do not have to worry about it. Plumbing and changing my car oil are two examples for me personally. While I might be able to learn how to do the particular job myself, in certain areas even if I had taught myself I would feel better having a knowledgeable professional handle it and be able to deal with the intricacies and any unforeseen situations that could arise.             Why am I sharing this in the legal blog? Because a recent case from the Indiana Supreme Court illustrates the potential pitfalls of trying to go it alone in the sometimes complicated world of litigation.  In McCullough v. CitiMortgage, two homeowners unsuccessfully challenged the foreclosure of their home.  While that does not make for a particularly interesting fact pattern, what is interesting is the opinion from the Supreme Court and “reading between the lines” the Court seems to imply that the homeowners may have had some legitimate arguments to make and potentially even win the appeal.             The main...

No Cheating Clause

No Cheating Clause     As anyone who has read this blog before knows, we have often written about the fact that Indiana courts will enforce contracts between parties when those contracts were freely negotiated.  One of the most recent decisions from the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed this longstanding and well settled principle, but the facts of this case were just too good to pass up.             Rather than rehash all of those facts, I will leave those to the readers, but it is safe to say that not every day in legal opinions do we have to read what the legal term for “cheating” is in the context of a relationship or a court’s rather poignant statements that in this contract which included a “no cheating” clause, the woman “wasted little time in breaching the contract.”             There is no doubt that the Court likely was also swayed by the fact that the real estate at issue formerly was owned by the man’s parents.   In any event, this case shows that not all the things that lawyers have to read are that boring and the lengths people will go to fight after a relationship falls apart.   Name(required) Email(required) Website Comment(required)      ...

After You Agree to a Judgment, That Is It.

After You Agree to a Judgment, That Is It. We have talked often in this blog about Indiana courts enforcing agreements that have been negotiated between parties, and not interfering with those agreements absent the agreements being illegal or there being some fraud involved in reaching that agreement. The Indiana Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed this principle, albeit in a context that is somewhat different than what business people may be accustomed. In situations where one party owes another party money, and a lawsuit has been filed to collect that money, it is not unusual for those parties to enter into an agreement whereby there will be an “agreed judgment” filed with the court, which the court then consents to and enters as a matter of record.  Those agreed judgments often will involve a payment plan for the amounts that are owed.  In the recent case, the parties had done just that.  The agreed judgment called for the defendant to pay to the plaintiff $400.55 plus an additional $450 in attorneys’ fees.  Four years after the agreed judgment was entered, and presumably because the defendant had not paid what she had agreed to pay, the plaintiff filed motions with the court seeking to garnish the defendant’s wages to satisfy the agreed judgment.  At that time, the defendant then appealed the entry of the agreed judgment.  Through some procedural maneuverings, and even though by this time the underlying debt had already been paid, a new trial was ordered and a judgment was entered against the plaintiff after the plaintiff did not appear for the new trial.  That judgment was then...

BLISSFULLY IGNORANT? NOT GOOD ENOUGH IN A REAL ESTATE DEAL

BLISSFULLY IGNORANT?  NOT GOOD ENOUGH IN A REAL ESTATE DEAL We have often discussed in this blog how the Indiana courts will look at contracts and typically enforce the exact terms that were agreed to by the parties.   The courts will also look at those contracts and hold the parties to the terms that were negotiated.   However, in a recent case, the Court of Appeals went even further, most likely to get to what was in the court’s opinion the best result. The two parties to the dispute had entered into a “property contract” whereby the seller was offering to sell certain real estate “property” to the buyer.   However, the seller did not actually own the property, but in fact had rights under a lease, and another person actually owned the real estate.   Therefore, the contract was not with the actual owner of the property; it was between the buyer and the person who was leasing the property from another person who actually was leasing from the owner. After the buyer defaulted on the contract due to not paying the monthly payments, the seller filed a lawsuit to evict the buyer and to collect the amounts that had not been paid.   At that point, the buyer, for the first time, conducted a title search and realized that the seller did not own the property, but rather only had been leasing it. The buyer then filed a counterclaim against the seller because the buyer claimed to have been defrauded by the seller given that the seller did not own the property and therefore could not sell it to the buyer....

Just When You Think You Know the Law…

Just When You Think You Know the Law . . . Regular readers of this blog know that we have spent a fair amount of time giving examples of how courts in Indiana regularly state that there is a strong public policy to enforce contracts.  In doing so, the court’s goal is to determine the intent of the parties at the time they made the contract, beginning with the plain language of the contract, reading it in context, and then determining if any part of the contract is ambiguous.  If it is ambiguous, then the court will construe the terms in the contract to determine and give effect to the intent of the parties at the time of the contract.  Otherwise, the court will enforce the plain language of the contract.  In a recent case that is pending in the United States District (Federal) Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the Court acknowledged this basis principle of Indiana law, but ultimately determined that despite the plain language of a settlement agreement from a previous case, the settlement agreement and release could not be enforced against a plaintiff. In other words, it would not enforce the contract despite the fact that the Court admitted the contract was not ambiguous and the intent of the parties was clear. The case involved the second of two class actions in which the plaintiffs had alleged violation of certain constitutional rights.  The plaintiffs were involved in both cases, the first of which had been settled through the terms of a settlement agreement.  The court noted, and it is important for the readers to...
Page 2 of 1112345...10...Last »