## Facts

- Hanover Logansport, Inc. (Hanover) agreed to lease commercial property to Robert C. Anderson, Inc. (Anderson) under a contract that contemplated delivery of possession on a set date.
- Hanover did not deliver the premises to Anderson on the contract date.
- Anderson filed suit against Hanover for breach of contract based on Hanover’s failure to timely deliver possession.
- Before trial, Hanover offered to deliver the premises to Anderson (specific performance of the lease obligation to provide possession).
- Anderson accepted Hanover’s offer, but included a condition stating that acceptance was “only ... for purposes of mitigation of damages and not in settlement of damages ... caused by [Hanover’s] breach of contract.”
- The parties filed a stipulation asking that the agreement/judgment be entered and recorded in the court’s judgment record.
- Anderson took possession of the property after the judgment was recorded.
- Hanover then moved to dismiss the remaining breach-of-contract litigation, arguing that Anderson’s acceptance of the offer and the resulting consent judgment resolved the case.
- The trial court denied Hanover’s motion to dismiss, and Hanover appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff who accepts a defendant’s offer to deliver possession of leased premises and has that agreement entered as a consent judgment may continue litigating for additional breach-of-contract damages when the judgment does not clearly reserve those damages.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Hanover’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that the recorded, stipulated judgment functioned as a consent judgment that resolved the claim arising from Hanover’s failure to deliver possession.
- The court concluded that Anderson could not continue to pursue additional damages based on the same breach because the judgment and record did not clearly show a mutual agreement to reserve a separate damages claim.
- The court remanded with instructions consistent with dismissal of the remaining breach-of-contract action.

## Legal Principles

- A consent judgment has two aspects: it is a court judgment and it reflects an agreement between the parties.
- The preclusive effect of a consent judgment is determined primarily by the intent shown in the judgment and the record leading to its entry.
- When the parties reduce their agreement to a judgment that grants relief for the pleaded breach (here, delivery of possession), the judgment generally ends further litigation over additional relief arising from the same transaction.
- A party cannot preserve additional claims from the same cause of action through a one-sided statement; any reservation of further damages must be clear and must appear in the consent judgment or an equivalent part of the record showing mutual assent.
- Claim-splitting is disallowed: absent a clear reservation, a party who obtains judgment-based relief for a breach cannot later seek additional remedies for that same breach in the same action.

## Conclusion

Because Anderson accepted Hanover’s offer to deliver the premises and the parties had the agreement entered and recorded as a consent judgment without a clear, mutual reservation of further damages, the judgment was treated as a final resolution of the breach-of-contract dispute and barred Anderson from continuing to litigate for additional damages.


Hanover Logansport, Inc. v. Robert C. Anderson, Inc., 512 N.E.2d 465 (1987)