Opinion ID: 852327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cross-Appeal on Count IX

Text: The trial court determined that Count IX, labeled Breach of Contract, is a claim subject to a ten-year limitation under Ind.Code § 34-11-2-11 (2008) and held that dismissing this claim against Second Century would be inappropriate. On cross-appeal, Second Century argues the trial court erred on Count IX because the activities constituting the alleged breach are not prohibited, required, or otherwise addressed in the Economic Development Agreement or a subsequent Confirmation Agreement. (Second Century's Br. at 34.) Count IX asserts that Pannos, Cappas, and Second Century breached the Confirmation Agreement by failing to open its books and records to the City in order to permit the City to exercise the agreed upon oversight.... (App. at 397.) Section 2 of the Confirmation Agreement of 1999 states that Showboat and/or any related company (`Gaming Licensee') agrees that the Gaming Licensee shall retain the obligations to fund Second Century on behalf of the City and as required by the Permanent License issued by the Indiana Gaming Commission, which funding is set at 0.75% .... (App. at 1511.) Section 3 explains that the parties agree that the City has the sole responsibility for assuring that Second Century will perform the duties described in the development agreement between the City and Showboat Marina Partnership. All projects to be constructed by Second Century are subject to the prior approval of the City and must conform to the City's comprehensive plan. ( Id. ) It is difficult to see how the City could adequately determine whether Second Century was using the funds entrusted to it under the letter agreement without viewing Second Century's financial records. The trial court did not err on this count.