Court Opinion

ID: 9705990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:29:16.25646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:27.692796
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur in the decision of the majority as to all issues except for its holding that the alleged oral contract providing that the four one per cent equity owners would be equally compensated on an annual basis does not violate the Indiana State of Frauds. On such issue, I respectfully dissent.
Tobin alleges that there was an oral contract which provided that he would receive compensation equal to the other one per cent equity partners on an annual basis. Thus, the alleged provision calling for equal compensation was to remain in effect over a term of years. This provision speaks prospectively from that date of contracting and falls within the Statute of Frauds. Although the contract may have been terminated pursuant to the at-will employment provision at any time, the provision was to remain in effect until termination. Indeed, Tobin alleges that it applies to the entire twelve year period in which he was employed while an equity owner.
I would affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment on this issue.