Waterfield Mortg. Co., Inc. v. O'Connor, 3--1074A175
Decision Date | 20 April 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 3--1074A175,3--1074A175 |
Citation | 361 N.E.2d 924,172 Ind.App. 673 |
Parties | WATERFIELD MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vincent E. O'CONNOR et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Edward N. Kalamaros, Edward N. Kalamaros & Associates, South Bend, Howard L. Chapman, Bonahoom, Chapman & McNellis, Fort Wayne, for plaintiff-appellant.
Gerald A. Kamm, Doran, Manion, Boynton & Kamm, South Bend, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff-appellant Waterfield Mortgage Company, Inc. (Waterfield) appeals from the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees arising from a restrictive covenant in an employment contract. On December 23, 1970, Waterfield and appellee Vincent E. O'Connor entered into an employment agreement, effective January 1, 1971, which provided, in part, as follows:
* * *
* * *.'
On May 31, 1972, O'Connor terminated his employment with appellant and was subsequently employed by the remaining appellees. Waterfield filed its complaint seeking injunctive relief and damages. On January 9, 1974, appellees filed their motion for summary judgment which was subsequently granted. Thereafter, appellant's motion to correct errors was overruled and this appeal was perfected.
Appellant contends that there are genuine issues of material fact surrounding the reasonableness of the spatial limitation in the noncompetition covenant.
In reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, the materials on file are to be construed in favor of the opponent of the motion, and any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the proponent of the motion. Collins v. Duniforn (1975), Ind.App., 323 N.E.2d 264. The burden is upon the proponent to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Podgorny v. Great Central Insurance Co. (1974), Ind.App., 311 N.E.2d 640; Doe v. Barnett (1969), 145 Ind.App. 542, 251 N.E.2d 688 (transfer denied).
Thus the proponent must set forth sufficient facts to enable the trial court to make a decision on the legal issue presented. Askew v. Hargrave (1971), 401 U.S. 476, 91 S.Ct. 856, 28 L.Ed.2d 196; Part 2, 6 Moore's Federal Practice, § 56.16, at 56--661 to 56--663 (2d Ed. 1976).
Covenants such as the one here at issue are in restraint of trade and not favored by the law. They will be enforced, however, where the restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's business, not unreasonably restrictive of the employee and not against the public interest. Grand Union Tea Company v. Walker...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc. v. Pickard
...supra note 1, 528 A.2d at 867-869.14 See Coolidge Co., Inc. v. Mokrynski, supra note 13 at 463.15 In Waterfield Mortgage Co. v. O'Connor, 172 Ind.App. 673, 361 N.E.2d 924, 926 [1977], a suit to enforce an employee's noncompetitive covenant, the court characterizes the ultimate determination......
-
Bodemer v. Swanel Beverage, Inc.
...which is broader in scope than the area of the employee's work will be deemed unenforceable.”); Waterfield Mortg. Co. v. O'Connor, 172 Ind.App. 673, 361 N.E.2d 924, 927 (Ind.Ct.App.1977) (“However, if an employee obtained confidential information, he may be restricted in the competitive use......
-
Rollins Burdick Hunter of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Hamilton
...parties must be given a full opportunity to develop the necessary evidentiary record. See, e. g., Waterfield Mortgage Co., Inc. v. O'Connor, 172 Ind.App. 673, 361 N.E.2d 924, 926-27 (1977). Accordingly, under our oft-repeated formula for analyzing summary judgment cases, see, Maynard v. Por......
-
F. W. Means & Co. v. Carstens
...Walker (1935), 208 Ind. 245, 195 N.E. 277; Slisz v. Munzenreider Corp. (1980), Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 700; Waterfield Mortgage Co. v. O'Connor (1977), 172 Ind.App. 673, 361 N.E.2d 924. Although the individual covenant or a portion thereof may be upheld, the courts closely scrutinize and limit......