Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 1 of 15

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS

Richard M. Davis

Kevin G. Kerr

Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP

Valparaiso, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Kevin W. Vanderground

Church, Church, Hittle & Antrim

Merrillville, Indiana

Rick C. Gikas

Merrillville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

The County of Lake, Indiana; 

Board of Commissioners of the 

County of Lake (Indiana), in 

their official capacities; and The 

Lake County Treasurer, in his 

official capacity,

Appellants-Defendants,

v.

U.S. Research Consultants, Inc., 

an Indiana Corporation,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 12, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

45A03-1401-CC-42

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable Calvin P. Hawkins, 

Judge

Cause No. 45D02-0805-CC-183

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 2 of 15

Case Summary and Issue

[1] U.S. Research Consultants, Inc. (“Consultant”) and The County of Lake, 

Indiana; the Board of Commissioners of the County of Lake, Indiana, in their 

official capacities; and the Lake County Treasurer, in his official capacity 

(collectively, the “County”), entered into a series of contracts (the “collection 

contracts”) for Consultant to be paid a commission for collecting delinquent 

real property taxes on behalf of the County. After the collection contracts were 

terminated, Consultant sued the County for breach of contract, alleging unpaid 

commissions under the collection contracts. The trial court granted 

Consultant’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied the County’s

motion regarding the interpretation of the contract. Based upon that judgment, 

the trial court later granted final judgment in excess of one million dollars to 

Consultant on its complaint. The County raises several issues, of which we find 

the following dispositive: whether the trial court properly interpreted the 

collection contracts as a matter of law and therefore properly granted partial 

summary judgment to Consultant and denied partial summary judgment to the 

County. Concluding the trial court erred as a matter of law in interpreting the 

collection contracts and erroneously granted partial summary judgment and 

ultimately final judgment to Consultant, we reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2000, the County and Consultant entered into a contract by which the

County assigned real property tax collection cases to Consultant for collection
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 3 of 15

and Consultant earned a commission on amounts collected. The initial 

contract was for a two-year term beginning January 1, 2000, and provided, in 

pertinent part:

2. Scope of Service. The Consultant shall do, perform, and carry out in 

a good and professional manner the services for the County, 

specifically the Consultant shall:

A. Consultant shall be assigned by the Lake County Treasurer 100% 

of the Real Property Tax Collection Cases.

B. Consultant shall report directly to the Lake County Treasurer for 

all instructions if necessary to carry out its responsibilities.

* * *

E. Collect the delinquent monies through an organized procedure to 

include filing lawsuits to collect if necessary.

* * *

I. All payments made by defendants on lawsuits filed with the 

Court(s) shall be made to the Clerk of the Court. These funds will then 

be transferred by the Clerk of the Court to the County of Lake and its 

Treasurer for deposit as payments are made. Payments will be applied 

as follows:

1. First to the payment of Court costs until these are paid in 

full.

2. The remaining funds will be split between real property 

taxes and penalties owed to the County of Lake and 

[Consultant’s] fees on a pro rata basis in accordance with the 

judgment rendered.

J. To obtain its fees [Consultant] will have to file a claim form with 

the County of Lake. [Consultant] will be paid out of the monies 

received from the Clerk.

K. If monies are paid on accounts prior to filing suit, these funds will 

be paid directly to the Lake County Treasurer who will collect not only 

taxes, fines and penalties but any [Consultant’s] fees. The Treasurer 

will deposit these funds into separate accounts for taxes, interest,

penalties and [Consultant’s] fees on a pro rata basis. [Consultant] will 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 4 of 15

then file a claim with the County of Lake for fees which should be paid 

from the funds established.

* * *

[Consultant’s] fees to be received must be reasonable and will be 

established by the Court as part of the judicial proceedings or by the 

Treasurer . . . . Shall not exceed fee following [sic]:

1. If suit is filed, [Consultant] will accept the fees awarded by 

the court as reasonable attorney’s fees.

2. If suit is not filed, [Consultant’s] fee will be twenty percent 

(20%) of the taxes.

Appellants’ Appendix at 26-28. The same contract was renewed for a second 

term in January 2002. See id. at 32-37. On June 4, 2003, the parties entered 

into a third contract which changed the terms of Consultant’s compensation:

4. Compensation. The County agrees to pay the Consultant a sum not 

to exceed the following:

1. If suit is not filed, Consultant(s) [sic] fee will be fifteen 

percent (15%) of the taxes for all projects begun on or after the date 

this Agreement is approved by the County. Consultant’s fees for 

projects begun before this Agreement is approved by the County shall 

be twenty percent (20%) of the taxes.

2. If suit is filed, Consultant(s) [sic] fee will be the amount 

determined by the Court.

Id. at 40. A fourth two-year contract was entered into on January 1, 2005 with 

these same (altered) compensation terms. The County terminated Consultant’s 

contract in November 2006.1

 

1 The contract included a clause allowing either party to terminate the agreement by giving at least thirty days 

written notice. See id. at 47.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 5 of 15

[3] The “organized procedure” for collecting delinquent monies was for the County 

to periodically send a disc to Consultant containing information about 

properties with delinquent taxes. However, the taxes were divided into “last 

year taxes,” or taxes delinquent for less than one year, and “prior year taxes,” 

or taxes delinquent for a year or more. See, e.g., id. at 420-23 (Deposition 

Exhibit of Treasurer’s records showing “Last Year Tax” and penalties and 

“Prior Year Tax” and penalties for the property). The Treasurer instructed 

Consultant to collect only on prior year taxes. Marsha DeMure, an employee

of the Treasurer’s office, testified at a deposition that the County assessed a 

penalty on every tax that was not paid on its due date. However, Treasurer’s 

office practice was that “[e]ven though they had a penalty, they would not be 

considered delinquent taxes.” Id. at 98. Consultant “was not able to handle 

that because that’s present year” and the Treasurer did not “consider the 

present year as delinquent taxes for collection . . . .” Id. In other words, “the 

present year is not given to [Consultant] to collect on. . . . [It] cannot collect on 

those ‘cause that’s the year we’re in. [What it is] able to collect on are what we 

say delinquent[,]” which are more than one year past due. Id. at 101; see also id.

at 220 (DeMure testifying that “[j]ust because you’re in the year that the 2001-

2002 tax was due and it has a penalty on it, it is delinquent, but it’s not 

delinquent for who was commissioned to collect these taxes. They were not 

considered delinquent for them to collect on.”). Clara Castro, an employee of 

Consultant, testified similarly at her deposition:

A: [The Treasurer’s Office] supplied us with a cutoff date. We could 

only collect from one date to this date. . . . 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 6 of 15

Q: So how did you learn about this cutoff date?

A: From Marcia [sic] Demure.

* * *

Q. Okay. And would it be fair to say that was your working 

definition of a delinquent tax, was the prior year’s taxes? 

A. Right.

* * *

A: We weren’t allowed to collect [last year taxes].

Id. at 199, 203-04.

[4] To initiate the collection process, Consultant sent a collection letter to taxpayers 

with delinquent prior year taxes. See id. at 190 (Castro, testifying that after she 

received a disc from the County, she would print out the “sheets that showed 

prior year taxes” and do research on those amounts before sending out 

collection letters). Consultant was not entitled to a commission on paid taxes 

unless a collection letter had first been sent. See id. at 196 (from Castro’s 

deposition: “Q. And then those would be the monies based on the prior year 

taxes that [Consultant] would be paid his commission? A: Yes.”). Every few 

months, Consultant would compare the letters it sent to the County’s tax 

payment records and submit a claim for commissions. After the claim was 

submitted, Castro and DeMure met and “went through each and every one of 

those parcels so that we agreed on the amounts that [Consultant] was 

collecting.” Id. at 463. Castro testified regarding Consultant’s commissions:

Q: What was your understanding as to how [Consultant] was being 

paid on these taxes that he was collecting?

A: Well, the only thing that I know is that when I generate the report 

[that was going to be submitted to the Treasurer for payment], he just 

said, “Make sure that everything is prior year taxes.”

Id. at 193.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 7 of 15

[5] Consultant filed its complaint against the County for breach of contract in 2008

alleging it was owed over $200,000 in unpaid commissions. The County filed 

an answer meeting the substantive allegations of the Complaint but asserting no 

affirmative defenses. In a pre-trial order entered June 12, 2012, the trial court 

summarized the parties’ contentions as follows:

D. Plaintiffs [sic] Contentions:

. . . [Consultant contends that], in violation of the express terms of the 

contracts, [the County] verbally and unilaterally changed the types of 

delinquent taxes upon which [Consultant] was entitled to receive 

commissions, and applied these changes in an inconsistent manner to 

the detriment of [Consultant]. As a result, [Consultant] contends that 

in excess of $1,000,000.00 in commissions are owed . . . .

E. Defendants’ Contentions

. . . [The County] contends that the term “delinquent taxes” had a very 

limited applicability pursuant to the course of conduct by the parties 

who all knew and understood how the contract was supposed to 

operate. [Consultant is] attempting to obtain unjust enrichment by 

receiving monies for taxes that they knew they were not entitled to 

collect, and conducted no activities in the actual collection process.

Id. at 707-10.

[6] Consultant filed a motion for partial summary judgment in December 2012

seeking a determination as a matter of law 

that the contracts at issue in this matter are not vague, but their 

meaning can be determined from an examination of the contract 

language, that, [sic] parol or extrinsic evidence may not be used to add 

restrictions to the contracts’ language governing payment of 

commissions, and that the evidence at trial be limited to a 

determination of what taxes were collected, and what commissions are 

due.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 8 of 15

Id. at 77. The County filed a response and cross-motion for partial summary 

judgment “as the evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and that [the County is] entitled to partial summary judgment as a 

matter of law on all claims by [Consultant] seeking to recover for ‘last years 

taxes’.” Id. at 149. 

[7] The trial court held a hearing on the cross-motions for partial summary 

judgment in June 2013. Counsel for Consultant described the issue before the 

court as “whether [Consultant] was entitled to receive a commission on all of 

the delinquent taxes that it recovered or just a portion of the delinquent taxes. 

And really the key question in this case is the definition of delinquent.” 

Transcript at 4. Consultant argued:

[O]nce a tax was more than one day past due, it was assigned a 

delinquent penalty. So there’s really no question here as to what a 

delinquent tax is. . . . What does it mean to be delinquent? It means it 

didn’t get paid on the day it was due.

* * *

[L]ast year’s taxes were . . . a year past due. The prior year’s taxes 

were two years past due. So they were all delinquent.

* * *

We’d ask the Court to enter partial summary judgment defining the 

term “delinquent,” and that’s all we’re asking for.

Id. at 8-13. The County argued:

[T]he issue here is not what the word “delinquent” means. There is no 

dispute about what a delinquent tax is or what process may be 

provided. The question is what process provides for when a 

delinquent tax becomes a tax collection case? And that’s the language 

of the contract that [Consultant] asked this Court to ignore.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 9 of 15

There is no provision in any of the agreements that have been 

designated to the Court which in any way say that [Consultant] is 

entitled to recover for every delinquent real estate property tax.

What it says is that 100 percent of real estate collection cases will be 

assigned to [Consultant]. When a case – a delinquent tax becomes a 

collection case is not defined in the contract. And when it will be 

assigned to [Consultant] is not defined in the contract. And that is 

where the instruction clause comes in.

* * *

[I]t’s very important to note in this case that throughout the years that 

these contracts were in force, [Consultant] expressly understood that it 

was only collecting on these prior year taxes. In fact, their testimony is 

that they took no steps to, and never sought to collect any of the last 

year taxes.

Id. at 19-22. On June 18, 2013, the trial court entered an order granting 

Consultant’s motion for partial summary judgment “as it relates to the 

definition of ‘delinquent’” and denying the County’s motion. Id. at 19-20. At a 

hearing on August 30, 2013, the parties requested clarification of the court’s 

order for purposes of going forward. The trial court stated, “in the ruling on the 

18th, as I understood ‘delinquency,’ that basically dealt with everything except 

the amounts.” Id. at 320.

[8] On September 20, 2013, the County filed a Motion for Leave to Amend its 

answer to assert the affirmative defenses of estoppel, waiver, accord and 

satisfaction, and laches. Consultant objected to the motion for leave to amend 

on grounds of undue delay and prejudice. In short order, Consultant also filed 

a motion for summary judgment, alleging it was entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law in its favor because:

1. The parties entered into contracts regarding services provided by 

[Consultant] for [the County] whereby [Consultant] would be paid 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 10 of 15

commissions.

2. [The County has] breached said contracts.

3. [The County has] alleged that it did not breach said contracts but 

this court has effectively ruled otherwise.

4. [The County has] failed to produce any evidence supporting [its] 

denial of [Consultant’s] claims and should be prohibited from now 

adding to or changing to [sic] the body of evidence as discovery is now 

closed.

5. . . . [A]s a result of [the County’s] breach, [Consultant] is owed 

$1,076,896.92, plus prejudgment interest and costs.

Id. at 326-27. The County filed a response to the Motion for Summary 

Judgment and also filed a Motion to Strike portions of an affidavit and 

accompanying exhibits Consultant designated in support of its motion and 

request for damages. 

[9] The trial court held a hearing on the County’s Motion for Leave to Amend its 

answer, Consultant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the County’s motion 

to strike Consultant’s affidavit. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court 

ruled from the bench that the County’s motion for leave to amend its answer 

was denied, the County’s motion to strike the affidavit was denied, and 

Consultant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. In an order 

memorializing this ruling, the trial court entered final judgment against the 

County and for Consultant “in the amount of $1,076,896.92, together with prejudgment interest in the amount of $393,000.00, together with its costs herein.” 

Id. at 22. The County now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 11 of 15

 Discussion and Decision

I. Summary Judgment Standard of Review

[10] We review a summary judgment order de novo. Neu v. Gibson, 928 N.E.2d 556, 

559 (Ind. 2010). A summary judgment order will be affirmed when there is no 

genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to summary 

judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 559-60; Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). The party 

appealing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment has the burden of 

persuading the court that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous. 

Diversified Invs., LLC v. U.S. Bank, NA, 838 N.E.2d 536, 539 (Ind. Ct. App.

2005), trans. denied. The fact that the parties made cross-motions for summary 

judgment does not alter our standard of review; we will consider each motion 

separately to determine if the moving party was entitled to summary judgment 

as a matter of law. Id.

II. Construction of the Collection Contracts

[11] The County contends the trial court erred in granting Consultant’s motion for 

partial summary judgment and in denying its own motion for partial summary 

judgment regarding the interpretation of the collection contracts.

[12] “Summary judgment is especially appropriate in the context of contract 

interpretation because the construction of a written contract is a question of 

law.” TW Gen. Contracting Servs., Inc. v. First Farmers Bank & Trust, 904 N.E.2d 

1285, 1287-88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). And because the construction of a written 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 12 of 15

contract is a question of law, we review the trial court’s judgment de novo. 

Jenkins v. S. Bend Cmty. Sch. Corp., 982 N.E.2d 343, 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), 

trans. denied. When a trial court has entered summary judgment in a contract 

dispute, it has implicitly determined either that the contract is not ambiguous as 

a matter of law and resolution requires only applying the terms of the contract 

or that any ambiguity may be resolved without the aid of factual 

determinations. Id. Here, the trial court made no specific finding regarding 

ambiguity, but the parties agree that the contract is unambiguous. See Brief of 

the Appellants at 22; Appellee’s Response Brief at 27-28. 

[13] “The ultimate goal of any contract interpretation is to determine the intent of 

the parties at the time that they made the agreement.” Citimortgage, Inc. v. 

Barabas, 975 N.E.2d 805, 813 (Ind. 2012). Where the terms of a contract are 

clear and unambiguous, we determine the parties’ intent from the four corners 

of the document. Univ. of S. Ind. Found. v. Baker, 843 N.E.2d 528, 532 (Ind. 

2006). We begin by reading the plain language of the contract in context, 

“construing it so as to render each word, phrase, and term meaningful, 

unambiguous, and harmonious with the whole” when possible. Citimortgage, 

Inc., 975 N.E.2d at 813. We should make every attempt to construe the 

language of the contract “so as not to render any words, phrases, or terms 

ineffective or meaningless.” Fischer v. Heymann, 943 N.E.2d 896, 900 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2011), trans. denied. If necessary, the text of a disputed provision may be 

understood by referring to other provisions within the four corners of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 13 of 15

document. Claire’s Boutiques, Inc. v. Brownsburg Station Partners LLC, 997 N.E.2d 

1093, 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

[14] The specific question presented by the cross motions for summary judgment 

was what Consultant was hired to collect pursuant to the contract provision 

that Consultant was to “[c]ollect the delinquent monies.” See, e.g., Appellants’ 

App. at 26 (Section 2.E. of January 19, 2000 contract). Consultant took the 

position that it was to collect all delinquent taxes and was entitled to 

commissions on the total amount, whereas the County took the position that 

Consultant was only to collect the past year delinquent taxes as directed by the 

Treasurer and was only entitled to commissions on that amount even if 

additional delinquent taxes were paid. 

[15] The collection contracts do not define the scope of “delinquent monies” 

Consultant was hired to collect, and in fact, Section 2.E. of the contract is the 

only time the term “delinquent” is used. However, by the contracts’ express 

terms, the Consultant was assigned all of the County’s “Real Property Tax 

Collection Cases” and was to receive instruction from the Treasurer as to how 

to carry out its responsibilities under the contracts. Reading the collection 

contracts as Consultant urges focuses on the collection clause at the expense of 

the assignment and instruction clauses. Moreover, it misreads the collection 

clause as charging Consultant with collecting “delinquent taxes.” Id. All the 

clauses are given meaning when the contracts as a whole are construed to mean 

that Consultant is to collect “the delinquent monies” associated with the real 

property tax collection cases assigned to it at the Treasurer’s instruction and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 14 of 15

that Consultant earns commissions on those amounts. That the contracts 

require Consultant to be assigned one-hundred percent of the real property tax 

collection cases means only that no tax collection cases will be assigned to any 

other entity for collection, not that Consultant will be assigned all delinquent 

tax accounts. In other words, the contracts allow the Treasurer to decide which 

cases are tax collection cases, assign those to Consultant and instruct

Consultant to carry out its collection responsibilities with respect to those cases. 

The contracts then require Consultant to attempt to collect the delinquent 

monies from those collection cases and file a claim for its commissions when 

those delinquent monies are paid to the County.

[16] Although we may not look to extrinsic evidence to add to, vary, or explain the 

parties’ intent with regard to an unambiguous contract, Baker, 843 N.E.2d at 

532, we do note that the evidence designated in support of these cross-motions 

supports this interpretation of the collection contracts. County employee 

DeMure testified at her deposition that Consultant was not to collect on every 

past-due tax but only those specified by the Treasurer. And Castro, 

Consultant’s employee, gave testimony at her deposition consistent with 

DeMure’s, stating that Consultant was told by the County to collect only on 

prior year taxes and consistent with that instruction, it sent collection letters 

only on prior year taxes and submitted claims for commissions only on prior 

year taxes that were collected. The evidence is undisputed that in discharging 

its responsibilities under the contracts, Consultant was collecting only prior year

taxes for the County. Although our resolution of this issue means we need not 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A03-1401-CC-42 | March 12, 2015 Page 15 of 15

address the merits of the final judgment in Consultant’s favor, we also note that 

even if Consultant was correct that the terms of the contracts meant it could

collect on every real property tax that was at least one day past due, it did not 

take the required steps to do so. Again, the undisputed evidence at this stage of 

the proceedings was that Consultant only sent collection letters on prior year

taxes and acknowledged that it was only entitled to commissions on taxes 

collected after a collection letter was sent. 

[17] The trial court erred as a matter of law in determining that the collection 

contracts meant Consultant was entitled to collect all delinquent taxes and 

therefore erred in granting partial summary judgment to Consultant and 

denying summary judgment to the County on this issue. We reverse the trial 

court’s June 18, 2013 order granting partial summary judgment to Consultant, 

and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter partial summary 

judgment for the County on the issue of the interpretation of the collection 

contracts and to conduct further proceedings on Consultant’s complaint 

regarding whether Consultant is owed any unpaid commissions on prior year 

taxes collected and if so, the amount of those unpaid commissions. 

Reversed and remanded.

Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.