Grissom v. Moran, No. 771A123
| Docket Nº | No. 771A123 |
| Citation | 292 N.E.2d 627, 154 Ind.App. 419 |
| Case Date | February 21, 1973 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 627
Counter-Defendants below),
v.
Theodore F. MORAN, Nedra J. Moran, Appellees (Defendants and
Counter-Claimants below).
[154 Ind.App. 422]
Page 628
Wolf & Robak, Greenfield, for appellants.Joseph F. Quill, John G. McNutt, Indianapolis, for appellees.
[154 Ind.App. 432] ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
[154 Ind.App. 433] BUCHANAN, Presiding Judge.
CONCLUSION--Grissoms' Petition for Rehearing is denied.
Grissoms' Petition for Rehearing is denied because the Grissoms have failed to show an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in returning the parties to the status quo.
STATEMENT OF PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT
In their Petition for Rehearing, petitioners-plaintiffs-appellants William and Amy Grissom (Grissoms) contend that the result reached by this court in our opinion at 290 N.E.2d 119 is inconsistent with the general rules announced in that opinion concerning the election of remedies available to a party who brings a fraud action.
In our opinion we concluded that defendants-appellees Theodore and Nedra Moran (Morans), having elected to rescind the contract for the sale of the Motel and seek a return to the status quo, were entitled to restitution of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) which they had paid under [154 Ind.App. 434] the contract and Nine Hundred Forty-four Dollars and Twenty-four Cents ($944.24) expended by them in repairing the Motel. It was also our conclusion that the judgment of Six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-one Dollars ($6,931.00), being considerably less than the Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-four Dollars and Twenty-four Cents ($10,944.24) due the Morans, was not so excessive as to constitute general damages. Differently stated, the sum awarded them was consistent with the election of the rescission remedy.
The Grissoms now offer for our consumption the contention that we and the trial judge failed to require the Morans to return the benefits they received under the contract. Specifically, they say the Morans received approximately Thirty-one Thousand Three Hundred Eighty-nine Dollars and Ninety-eight Cents ($31,389.98) from the operation of the Motel during the period of their possession. Deducting approximately Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) for overhead expenses, Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for the amount paid by the Morans under the contract, and an additional Nine Hundred Forty-four Dollars and Twenty-four Cents ($944.24) spent by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Tomsic, Bankruptcy No. 85-61244
...evidence required in a bankruptcy setting. See, e.g., Grissom v. Moran, 154 Ind.App. 419, 290 N.E.2d 119, Reh'rg Denied 154 Ind.App. 432, 292 N.E.2d 627 (Ind.App.1972) (fraud action); Bissell v. Wert, 35 Ind. 54 (Ind.1871) However, the Indiana Courts have recently added an exception to the ......
-
Mack v. American Fletcher Nat. Bank and Trust Co., No. 06A04-8610-CV-310
...by seeking damages thereon instead of electing to sue for rescission of a voidable transaction. See, e.g., Grissom v. Moran (1973), 154 Ind.App. 419, 292 N.E.2d 627 (on rehearing) (in suit for fraud, plaintiff must elect to sue for damages or to return all benefits and seek rescission). In ......
-
In re Rudd, Bankruptcy No. 85-60413
...evidence required in a bankruptcy setting. See, e.g., Grissom v. Moran, 154 Ind.App. 419, 290 N.E.2d 119, Reh'rg Denied 154 Ind.App. 432, 292 N.E.2d 627 (1972) (fraud action); Bissell v. Wert, 35 Ind. 54 (Ind.1871) 104 BR 16 However, the Indiana Courts have recently added an exception to th......
-
Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co. of Frankfort, Ind., No. 2-581A150
...897; Economy Leasing Co., Ltd. v. Wood (2d Dist.1981) Ind.App., 427 N.E.2d 483; Grissom v. Moran (2d Dist. 1973 Opinion on Rehearing) 154 Ind.App. 419, 292 N.E.2d We hold that the trial court did not err in determining that Smoker had disaffirmed the contract and C.D. prior to bringing the ......
-
In re Tomsic, Bankruptcy No. 85-61244
...evidence required in a bankruptcy setting. See, e.g., Grissom v. Moran, 154 Ind.App. 419, 290 N.E.2d 119, Reh'rg Denied 154 Ind.App. 432, 292 N.E.2d 627 (Ind.App.1972) (fraud action); Bissell v. Wert, 35 Ind. 54 (Ind.1871) However, the Indiana Courts have recently added an exception to the ......
-
Mack v. American Fletcher Nat. Bank and Trust Co., No. 06A04-8610-CV-310
...by seeking damages thereon instead of electing to sue for rescission of a voidable transaction. See, e.g., Grissom v. Moran (1973), 154 Ind.App. 419, 292 N.E.2d 627 (on rehearing) (in suit for fraud, plaintiff must elect to sue for damages or to return all benefits and seek rescission). In ......
-
In re Rudd, Bankruptcy No. 85-60413
...evidence required in a bankruptcy setting. See, e.g., Grissom v. Moran, 154 Ind.App. 419, 290 N.E.2d 119, Reh'rg Denied 154 Ind.App. 432, 292 N.E.2d 627 (1972) (fraud action); Bissell v. Wert, 35 Ind. 54 (Ind.1871) 104 BR 16 However, the Indiana Courts have recently added an exception to th......
-
Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co. of Frankfort, Ind., No. 2-581A150
...897; Economy Leasing Co., Ltd. v. Wood (2d Dist.1981) Ind.App., 427 N.E.2d 483; Grissom v. Moran (2d Dist. 1973 Opinion on Rehearing) 154 Ind.App. 419, 292 N.E.2d We hold that the trial court did not err in determining that Smoker had disaffirmed the contract and C.D. prior to bringing the ......