Rush, C.J.
Parties are free to choose the terms of their agreements, and Indiana courts firmly defend this freedom of contract by enforcing agreed-upon terms.
Here, a doctor worked as a cardiologist and was also a member–owner of a hospital. He agreed with his employer and with the hospital that if his employment is “terminated for any reason”—that is, upon “any termination”—his ownership interest must be discontinued and redeemed.
We hold that “any termination” means just that—any termination, for any reason. The hospital thus did not breach the agreement by paying out the doctor’s ownership interest after his employment terminated. It did, however, breach the agreement by delaying the payout, so the doctor is entitled to interest.
We also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the doctor discovery sanctions of $27,233.19 in attorney fees and expenses.
We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court.
….
We hold that under the plain meaning of the contract language, the Hospital did not breach the joinder agreement by discontinuing and redeeming Dr. Sawyer’s ownership interest. We conclude, though, that the Hospital did breach the agreement by delaying the payout, so Dr. Sawyer is entitled to interest on the delay. Finally, we turn to the sanction award and find no abuse of discretion.
I. The Hospital breached the joinder agreement only by delaying Dr. Sawyer’s payout.
….
A. The parties’ agreed-upon terms are unambiguous.
….
B. The joinder agreement’s plain language requires redemption upon any termination of Dr. Sawyer’s employment with the Medical Group.
….
C. The Hospital breached the agreement by delaying payment to Dr. Sawyer, who is entitled to interest on the delay.
….
II. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Dr. Sawyer $27,233.19 in attorney fees and costs.
Dr. Sawyer argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding him discovery sanctions of only $27,233.19 in attorney fees and expenses. He gives two reasons: that the court did not hold a hearing on the sanction award amount as required by Trial Rule 37(A), and that he is entitled to more than $27,233.19 for discovery abuses. We conclude that any error in not holding a hearing was harmless, and the $27,233.19 award was within the court’s discretion.
….
Conclusion
We defend the freedom of contract by enforcing parties’ agreed terms. Giving effect to the plain language of the parties’ agreement here, we reverse the $470,000 judgment against the Hospital and remand for entry of judgment in the amount of $6,559.60 against the Hospital.
We also find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of attorney fees and expenses.
We therefore reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand to the trial court to enter judgment against the Hospital in the corrected amount.
David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.