Skip to main content

Fortune Management, Inc. v. Design Collaborative, Inc.

Ind. Ct. App.July 30, 2012No. 34A02-1110-CC-1131
Mixed ResultFortune Management, Inc.$70,740 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Design prevailed on its breach of contract claim and recovered damages for services rendered ($70,740.00 total). However, the trial court's award of prejudgment interest was partially reversed on appeal, with interest denied for the apartment unit development phase.

What This Ruling Means

**Fortune Management v. Design Collaborative: Contract Dispute Over Unpaid Services** This case involved a business dispute between Fortune Management and Design Collaborative over unpaid work. Design Collaborative had provided services to Fortune Management but wasn't fully paid for their work, leading to a breach of contract lawsuit. The court sided with Design Collaborative, ruling that Fortune Management had indeed broken their contract by failing to pay for services that were properly completed. Design Collaborative was awarded $70,740 in damages for the unpaid work. However, when the case went to appeal, the higher court made a partial change to the original decision. While Design Collaborative kept their main victory and damages, they lost some of the extra interest money they were originally awarded - specifically interest related to an apartment development project phase. **What This Means for Workers:** This case demonstrates that businesses and contractors have legal protection when clients don't pay for completed work. Courts will enforce contracts and order payment for services that were properly delivered. However, it also shows that appeals can modify awards, potentially reducing the total amount recovered. The key takeaway is that written contracts matter and legal remedies exist when payment disputes arise.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Breach of Contract cases

Similar Rulings

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
Mark C. Marshall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App.Dec 2019
Mixed Result
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: H.O. (Minor Child) and T.O. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App.Dec 2019
Defendant Win
Indiana Commissioner of Labor, on the Relation of Heather Chamness v. J.D. Byrider Systems, LLC (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App.Apr 2019
Defendant Win
Read Full OpinionMore Fortune Management, Inc. RulingsAll Rulings

Browse Related

More real estate employer cases

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My RightsLearn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.