Narenda Parbhubhai Patel v. United Inss, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: BRETT J. MILLER KARL L. MULVANEY ANNE COWGUR Bingham McHale Indianapolis, Indiana T. JOSEPH WENDT Barnes & Thornburg Indianapolis, Indiana FILED Dec 05 2008, 4:40 pm IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA NARENDRA PARBHUBHAI PATEL, Appellant-Defendant, vs. UNITED INNS, INC., Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 06A04-0709-CV-501 APPEAL FROM THE BOONE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Matt C. Kincaid, Judge Cause No. 06D01-0412-PL-393 December 5, 2008 Dissent from Denial of Petition for Rehearing BROWN, Judge CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court I respectfully dissent from the denial of Appellant s Petition for Rehearing regarding our opinion in Patel v. United Inns, Inc., 887 N.E.2d 139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The relevant facts of this case are that Oceanic Hospitality ( Oceanic ) was the high bidder to purchase a hotel owned by United Inns, Inc. ( United ), and Narendra Parbhubhai Patel ( Patel ) was the second highest bidder. Patel s contract obligated him to purchase the hotel if Oceanic defaulted. When Oceanic failed to make an earnest money payment by October 5, 2004, United declared Oceanic in default and notified Patel that his offer had been accepted. However, Patel failed to close on the purchase by October 28, 2004, because he did not have the necessary financing. United is claiming his $249,100.00 in earnest money as liquidated damages. After Patel failed to close on the transaction, United and Oceanic entered into a Resolution Agreement and Amendment to Real Estate Sale Contract that, among other things, amended the original contract between United and Oceanic and set a new closing date of November 29, 2004. Additionally, United, Oceanic, and Jewel, Inc. ( Jewel ), an affiliate of Oceanic, entered into an Assignment and Assumption of Contract for the Purchase of Real Estate ( Assignment Agreement ), which assigned Oceanic s right to purchase the hotel to Jewel. In the Assignment Agreement, which was signed by United, Oceanic, and Jewel, Oceanic represented and warranted that [t]he above Real Estate Sale Contract, as amended by the aforementioned Resolution Agreement and Amendment to Real Estate Contract and by this Agreement, is in full force and effect 2 and that Oceanic was not in default under the Contract. Appellant s Appendix at 243. Jewel purchased the hotel on November 29, 2004. United then filed an action against Patel for the $249,100.00 in earnest money, and the trial court awarded United the earnest money and attorney fees. On appeal, we affirmed, holding that Patel had breached the purchase agreement and that the liquidated damages clause was not an unenforceable penalty and rejecting Patel s equitable argument. I would grant rehearing as I believe our earlier opinion to be in error. Whether Oceanic s original failure to purchase the hotel in question from United constituted a default or not, United allowed any such default by Oceanic to be cured by Oceanic s assignment of its contract to Oceanic s affiliate, Jewel, and Jewel s purchase of the hotel for not only the original bid but also extension fees. The Assignment Agreement provided that the Real Estate Contract entered into between Oceanic as purchaser and United as seller, as amended, was in full force and effect and that Oceanic was not in default under the Contract. Appellant s Appendix at 243. Under the circumstances presented, it is wholly inequitable to allow United the windfall of retaining Patel s earnest money deposit and attorney fees in addition to its acceptance and realization of the winning bid plus extension fees. See, e.g., Kimmel v. Cockrell, 161 Ind.App. 659, 664, 317 N.E.2d 449, 452 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974) ( It is true that Kimmels did not cure the alleged default within thirty days of the notice of forfeiture, but the actions of Cockrells in accepting late payment must act as a waiver of this breach. ). Consequently, I would 3 grant Patel s petition for rehearing and would vote to reverse the trial court s judgment for United. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
