Case Title: Thomas H. Kramer, Member and Manager of Domus Property Investments, LLC v. Mark Kramer, and Domus Property Investments, LLC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 71S04-1503-PL-132

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2015-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT  
 
 
 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 
 
Lonnie D. Johnson 
 
 
 
 
 
Shawn P. Ryan 
Belinda R. Johnson-Hurtado 
 
 
 
 
South Bend, Indiana 
Bloomington, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 71S04-1503-PL-132 
 
 
THOMAS H. KRAMER, Member and Manager  
of Domus Property Investments, LLC 
 
 
Appellant (Plaintiff /  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counterclaim Defendant below), 
 
v. 
 
MARK KRAMER,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Defendant /  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counterclaim Plaintiff /  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Third Party Plaintiff below), 
 
and 
 
DOMUS PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC 
 
 
Appellee (Third Party Defendant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the St. Joseph Circuit Court, Mishawaka Division,  
No. 71C01-0510-PL-292 
The Honorable Michael G. Gotsch, Judge 
The Honorable Larry L. Ambler, Magistrate 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 71A04-1305-PL-261 
_________________________________ 
 
March 17, 2015 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
 
Mar 17 2015, 3:09 pm
Brothers Mark and Thomas Kramer were 50/50 members in Domus Property Investments, 
LLC.  Domus engaged in the business of buying, renovating, and leasing residential rental 
properties.  The Domus operating agreement contained a noncompetition clause whereby each 
brother agreed not to engage in similar activities outside of their joint business.  Thomas brought 
this action alleging, among other things, that Mark breached the agreement by independently 
purchasing three properties.  Mark answered and asserted several counterclaims. 
 
After a bench trial, the trial court determined Mark committed certain breaches of the 
agreement, and awarded Thomas damages in the amount of $33,043.49 plus prejudgment interest.  
Thomas appealed, contending in part the trial court erred because it did not explicitly find a 
separate breach for each of the three property purchases.  Thomas also contended the trial court 
did not award him enough damages.  The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and 
remanded to the trial court with instructions “to find Mark in breach of the Operating Agreement’s 
noncompetition clause as to all three of [t]he [p]roperties and to award [Thomas] $333,156 in 
damages therefor.”  Kramer v. Kramer, No. 71A04-1305-PL-261, slip op. at 21 (Ind. Ct. App. May 
30, 2014), reh’g denied.  Mark seeks transfer, contending the Court of Appeals improperly 
determined damages. 
 
We grant transfer, and now summarily affirm the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Mark 
breached the noncompetition agreement with respect to all three properties.  See Ind. Appellate 
Rule 58(A)(2).  We remand to the trial court with instructions to determine damages. 
 
All Justices concur. 
 
2