An oral business deal struck over financial seminars without a written contract has resulted in a $119,779 (£92,000) court judgment upheld by the Court of Appeals of Indiana. In an opinion issued on October 15, a three-judge appellate panel affirmed a trial court ruling requiring Stephen Dissette to pay damages to his former business partner, Brandon Rudd, following a dispute over split commissions generated from retirement education events. The case, Stephen Dissette v. Brandon Rudd, stemmed from an informal arrangement established in 2019. The two financial professionals agreed to co-host and present educational seminars aimed at individuals planning for retirement, with an understanding that commissions and revenues earned from client referrals would be divided between them.
Informal arrangement leads to financial dispute
According to appellate court records published by Justia Law, Dissette and Rudd began collaborating on retirement planning seminars to generate prospective wealth management clients. Under their unwritten agreement, the partners planned to share the financial rewards resulting from business leads produced by the seminars. However, after revenue began flowing in from clients recruited during the events, a disagreement emerged over the precise calculation and distribution of commission payments. Because the business partners had relied entirely on an oral arrangement rather than executing a formal written contract, the relationship deteriorated into litigation over unpaid earnings.
Rudd subsequently filed a lawsuit in Indiana state court alleging breach of contract and seeking his portion of the withheld seminar commissions. Following a trial evaluating bank records, client transactions, and witness testimony, the trial court ruled in Rudd's favour and entered a judgment totaling $119,779 against Dissette.
Legal principles governing unwritten contracts
On appeal to the Court of Appeals of Indiana under docket number 25A-PL-02468, Dissette challenged the trial court's decision, disputing the enforceability of the verbal agreement and the calculation of the monetary award. Under Indiana contract law, oral agreements are legally binding provided the parties demonstrate mutual assent to essential terms and exchange sufficient legal consideration. When disputes arise over unwritten contracts, trial judges serve as the primary triers of fact, tasked with evaluating witness credibility and weighing circumstantial evidence to determine the terms of the original bargain. Reviewing the lower court's findings, the Court of Appeals of Indiana determined that the trial record contained sufficient evidence demonstrating that an enforceable oral contract existed between Dissette and Rudd to split the seminar commissions. The appellate panel concluded that the trial court did not commit clear error in calculating the $119,779 judgment based on the evidence presented regarding seminar leads, client conversions, and generated commission fees.
Appellate decision and final ruling
Writing for the court, the appellate panel affirmed the trial court's judgment in full, rejecting Dissette's claims on appeal and leaving the $119,779 award intact. Official court records indicate the decision was handed down on October 15, 2026, conclusively resolving the legal challenge regarding the 2019 retirement seminar commissions.