Rush, C.J.
An old proverb provides that those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind. This observation that actions have consequences is particularly apt when, as here, a company contracts with a school corporation for a wind-turbine project. Although Indiana law affords school corporations significant authority, their ability to invest public funds is limited by statute. And if they exceed their statutory authority when contracting with a company, the contract is void and unenforceable.
Here, a school corporation contractually agreed to make biannual payments to a company for access to a wind turbine. And in that contract, the company agreed to provide the school corporation with financial benefits tied to the turbine’s net revenue. We hold that the contract constitutes an unauthorized investment under Indiana law, rendering the contract void and unenforceable. We therefore affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the school corporation.
….
Our Legislature has imposed such limits on school corporations in Indiana’s Home Rule and Public Investment Acts. In relevant part, the Home Rule Act withholds from school corporations “[t]he power to invest money, except as expressly granted by statute.” Ind. Code § 36-1-3- 8(a)(11); see also id. § 20-26-3-7(1). And while the Public Investment Act grants school corporations the power to invest public funds in various ways, a wind turbine is not one of them. See I.C. ch. 5-13-9.
Relying on these statutes, RESC argues its contract with Performance is void because the school corporation exceeded its authority by investing money in the wind-turbine project “to earn a financial return.” Performance, on the other hand, asserts that RESC’s payments were “not tied to any financial return” but were instead to provide “physical access to the wind turbine as well as access to the turbine’s data for educational and vocational training purposes.” We agree with RESC.
We first hold that the statutorily undefined term “invest” in the Home Rule and Public Investment Acts means to commit money in hopes of obtaining a financial return. We then apply that definition and conclude the contract between RESC and Performance was an illegal investment by a school corporation because RESC in part sought to reap a financial benefit. Because RESC was not statutorily authorized to invest public funds in this way, we hold the contract is void and unenforceable as a matter of law. We therefore affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to RESC.
I. Under Indiana’s Home Rule and Public Investment Acts, “invest” means to commit money in hopes of obtaining a financial return.
….
II. Because RESC contracted to invest in the turbine, the contract is void and unenforceable.
….
While we recognize that RESC’s access to the turbine constitutes an immediate, tangible benefit, this benefit does not preclude the contract from also constituting an investment. Indeed, the contract contemplated that RESC’s payment would vary depending on the turbine’s financial performance. And the contract also entitled RESC to excess net revenue generated by the turbine. Simply put, though RESC committed money to Performance in exchange for access to the turbine, RESC also committed money in hopes of obtaining a financial return. As a result, we conclude the contract constitutes an illegal investment by a school corporation under the Home Rule Act and the Public Investment Act. And we decline to address whether the offending portions of the contract are severable as neither party, at any stage, has ever taken that position. Cf. Harbour v. Arelco, Inc., 678 N.E.2d 381, 385 & n.4 (Ind. 1997). This is not surprising, as the record is simply devoid of evidence that the parties would have executed the agreement but for RESC’s potential to reap financial benefits. Thus, we hold the contract is void and unenforceable. RESC is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Conclusion
Because the contract between RESC and Performance constituted an investment unauthorized by statute, the contract is void and unenforceable. We therefore affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to RESC. [Footnote omitted.]
Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur.