Opinion ID: 2116300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Attorney Fees Provision is Unenforceable

Text: Both parties moved for summary judgment on the issue of enforceability of the attorney fees provision in the Rental Agreement. Harbour argued that because attorney fees were not allowed under the statute, the entire contract was unenforceable. [4] We agree with the Court of Appeals that the attorney fees provision is unenforceable because Section 13 of the Act restricts the items for which a renter may be liable and does not authorize recovery of attorney fees. [5] We briefly address this issue to note that inclusion of this provision, by itself, did not render the entire contract invalid. Generally, a contract made in violation of a statute is void. See Continental Basketball Assoc. v. Ellenstein Enter., 669 N.E.2d 134, 139-40 (Ind.1996). However, if a contract contains an illegal provision which can be eliminated without frustrating the basic purpose of the contract, the court will enforce the remainder of the contract. Corner v. Mills, 650 N.E.2d 712, 715 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (citing Brokaw v. Brokaw, 398 N.E.2d 1385, 1388 (Ind.Ct.App. 1980)). We agree with the Court of Appeals that the primary purpose of the contract is not frustrated by eliminating the attorney fees provision. If the contract had conformed with the statutory requirements, the inclusion of the attorney fees provision alone would not have rendered the entire contract unenforceable. Here, the trial court properly granted partial summary judgment in favor of Harbour by determining the Act does not allow Arelco to collect attorney fees.