Ed Bertholet & Associates, Inc. v. Ed Stefanko
690 N.E.2d 361 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractual provision requiring a court to issue an injunction upon breach is not binding on the court, as parties cannot by private agreement oust a court of its inherent equitable jurisdiction and discretion.
Facts:
- On December 2, 1994, Ed Stefanko entered into an employment contract with Ed Bertholet & Associates, Inc. ('Bertholet') to work as a bail bondsman.
- The contract contained a covenant not to compete.
- The contract also included a provision stipulating that an injunction should be issued in the event Stefanko breached the covenant.
- The contract specified a liquidated damages remedy, requiring Stefanko to pay Bertholet 15% of any bonds he wrote while in violation of the covenant.
- On April 17, 1997, Stefanko voluntarily terminated his employment with Bertholet.
- Shortly after quitting, Stefanko began working as a bail bondsman for a local competitor.
Procedural Posture:
- Ed Bertholet & Associates, Inc. ('Bertholet') filed a lawsuit against Ed Stefanko in a state trial court to enforce a covenant not to compete.
- Bertholet petitioned the court for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
- The trial court denied the petition for a temporary restraining order.
- After a hearing, the trial court denied Bertholet’s petition for a preliminary injunction, ruling that Bertholet had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
- Bertholet (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of the preliminary injunction to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- Stefanko (appellee) did not file a brief in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a contractual provision that requires a court to issue an injunction upon breach binding on the court, thereby removing the court's discretion to deny injunctive relief if the standard legal requirements are not met?
Opinions:
Majority - Garrard, Judge
No. A contractual provision requiring the issuance of an injunction is not binding upon the trial court. The determination to grant or deny an injunction rests within the trial court's equitable discretion, and parties cannot by contract oust the inherent jurisdiction of the courts. Such a provision would impermissibly remove the determination of whether to grant or deny an injunction from the court's discretion. The court found that Bertholet failed to satisfy the standard requirements for an injunction, specifically by not demonstrating irreparable harm. Moreover, the contract's own liquidated damages clause provided an adequate remedy at law, which further undermined the claim that the harm was irreparable and that an injunction was necessary.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limits of freedom of contract when it intersects with the judiciary's inherent equitable powers. It establishes in Indiana that parties cannot contractually pre-determine equitable remedies like injunctions, preserving the court's role as the ultimate arbiter of whether such extraordinary relief is warranted. The ruling reinforces the principle that judicial discretion in equity cannot be waived or eliminated by private agreement, ensuring that injunctions are granted based on established legal standards rather than contractual mandates. This precedent will prevent parties from using contracts to circumvent the rigorous requirements for obtaining injunctive relief.
Unlock the full brief for Ed Bertholet & Associates, Inc. v. Ed Stefanko