Court Opinion

ID: 9518719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:00:12.717988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:20.232389
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the decision of my colleagues to affirm the decision of the trial court on the plaintiffs complaint, but I respectfully dissent from their decision affirming the trial court’s order denying relief on the defendants’ counterclaim.
I do not believe that a breach of the Home Improvement Contract Act (HICA) is subject to the provisions of IC 24-5-0.5-2(a)(8) and must be either uncured or incurable. The relevant section in HICA (IC 24-5-11-14) says that failing to provide a written contract is a deceptive act that is actionable under IC 24-5-0.5-4 and “is subject to the penalties under IC 24-5-0.5.” No mention is made of cure on incurability.
I believe that imposing the cure provisions undermines HICA’s purposes and its requirement of written contract for home improvement projects. A home improvement contractor could escape liability (as here) by simply proceeding without a written contract unless the homeowners give notice at which time the contractor could cure the deceptive act by tendering a written contract.