Court Opinion

ID: 9529831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:54:35.494436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:55.953913
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. The trial court erred when it found that Guzik was not required to repay the advances to the extent they exceeded earned commissions. The Majority's affir-mance compounds the error and is contrary to law.
A trial court's judgment is contrary to law 'if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court, leads incontrovertibly to a conclusion opposite to the one reached by the trial court. Romain v. A. Howard Wholesale Co., 506 N.E.2d 1124, 1126 (Ind.Ct.App.1987), trans. denied.
The general presumption is not applicable here because a contrary contractual arrangement nullifies the presumption that an agent receiving advances against earned commissions incurs no personal liability to reimburse his principal should the commission prove insufficient. Skweres v. Diamond Craft Co., 512 N.E.2d 217, 220 (Ind.Ct.App.1987). On the other hand, if the contract of employment contains a promise by the agent to repay the sums advanced by the principal, then, the transaction would amount to no more than a loan. The principal has a right to judgment. Id.; Arbaugh v. Shockney, 34 Ind.App. 268, 275, 72 N.E. 668, 669 (1904).
In the case before us, the contract clearly indicates that the only compensation Guszik was to receive was commission based upon fees resulting from business obtained due to the sales efforts of Guzik. The contract also contains an express promise to return any excess advances: "If employee, however, is advanced more monies than he earns for the calendar year, then employee shall reimburse same to Company within thirty (80) days after employee has been furnished an accounting by the Company of his first calendar year commissions." Record, p. 47-8 (emphasis added). When contract language is clear and unambiguous, it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. City of Evansville v. Braun, 619 N.E.2d 956, 958 (Ind.Ct.App.1993).
The Majority erroneously concludes that because Guzik is no longer an employee, the reimbursement provision does not apply. It is the duty of the court to interpret a contract so as to ascertain the intent of the parties. It must accept an interpretation which harmonizes provisions as opposed to one which causes the provisions to be conflicting. First Federal Sav. Bank v. Key Markets, Inc., 559 N.E.2d 600, 608 (Ind.1990). The Majority interprets the provision as only requiring an employee to return excess advances. Op. at 240. Guzik was an employee when he received the advances. Simply because he chose to resign from employment, should not render the contract provision meaningless. See Bicknell Minerals Inc. v. Tilly, 5170 N.E.2d 1307, 1316 *242(Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied (appellate court will make all attempts to construe contract language so as not to render any words, phrases, or terms ineffective or meaningless). Moreover, the plain and ordinary meaning is that meaning given to the contract language by the community and the ordinary reader. P.C. Management, Inc. v. Page Two, Inc., 578 N.E.2d 484, 488 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), reh. denied. An ordinary reader would understand the relevant contract provisions to mean that if you receive advances in an amount greater than commission you earned, you are obligated to return the overpayment whether you are a current employee or former employee. To do otherwise, would allow an employee to resign from employment and keep money he was not entitled to hold as earned commissions.
The evidence leads incontrovertibly to a conclusion opposite to that reached by the trial court; its judgment should be reversed.