Baker, S.J.
Statement of the Case
In this home improvement case, Jacob and Jonathan Balash (the Balashes) appeal the court’s judgment entered in favor of contractor Steve Mader, claiming it is contrary to law. Specifically, the Balashes contend the small claims court’s award of damages to Mader is erroneous because Mader failed to provide the Balashes with a written contract in accordance with the Home Improvement Contracts Act. Concluding that Mader’s dealings with the Balashes fell within the scope of the Act and that Mader consequently cannot recover damages from the Balashes, we reverse with instructions.
….
The Balashes contend the court’s judgment in favor of Mader is clearly erroneous because Mader’s claim is based on an oral agreement for residential real property improvements in violation of the Home Improvement Contracts Act. See Ind. Code §§ 24-5-11-1 to -14…
….
The heart of the Act, Section 24-5-11-10(a), mandates that suppliers provide a completed contract to the consumer before it is signed by the consumer. The section further requires that the contract contain, at a minimum:
(1) The name of the consumer and the address of the real property that is the subject of the real property improvement.
(2) The name, address, and email address of the real property improvement supplier.
(3) The name, telephone number, and email address for each owner, officer, employee, or agent of the real property improvement supplier to whom consumer problems and inquiries can be directed.
(4) The date the real property improvement contract was submitted to the consumer and any time limitation on the consumer’s acceptance of the real property improvement contract.
(5) A reasonably detailed description of the proposed real property improvements.
(6) If the description does not include the specifications for the real property improvement, a statement that the specifications will be provided to the consumer before any work is commenced under the real property improvement contract and that the real property improvement contract is subject to the consumer’s separate written and dated approval of the specifications.
(7) The approximate starting and completion dates of the real property improvements.
(8) A statement of any contingencies that would materially change the approximate completion date.
(9) The real property improvement contract price.
(10) A statement as to whether any third party, including any subcontractor, vendor, or other person that is not a party to the contract, will lease or furnish any labor, services, material, equipment, or machinery to, or on behalf of, the real property improvement supplier in connection with the real property improvement.
(11) Signature lines for the real property improvement supplier or the supplier’s agent and for each consumer who is to be a party to the real property improvement contract with a legible printed or a typed version of that person’s name placed directly after or below the signature.
See id.
….
A panel of this Court recently recognized this discrepancy and determined that, with its “unmistakable specificity,” Section 24-5-11-10(a) controls. See Logan v. Evans, 230 N.E.3d 371, 381 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (noting discrepancy, recognizing tenet that specific statutory provision takes priority over general one, and concluding that I.C. § 24-5-11-10(a)(10) “specifically and unambiguously requires that a real property improvement contract be in writing and signed by both the supplier and the customer”). Accordingly, a real property improvement contract must be in writing and signed by both parties. Id. (citing I.C. § 24-5-11-10(a)(10)); see also I.C. § 24-5-11-10.6 (2017) (referring to contract being signed by consumer and supplier); I.C. § 24-5-11-11 (2017) (requiring supplier to agree to terms of contract by “written signature” before consumer signs contract); I.C. § 24-5-11-12 (2017) (requiring supplier to give “fully executed copy” of contract to consumer “immediately after the consumer signs it”), and see McGraw Prop. Sols., LLC v. Jenkins, 159 N.E.3d 991, 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (stating that Act requires suppliers to provide consumer with written contract).
In the present case, Mader is undeniably a real property improvement supplier who was hired by the Balashes to perform real property improvements, the cost of which exceeded $150. It is also undisputed that Mader never provided a written contract to the Balashes and that they never signed a contract with Mader or executed any documents that would have satisfied the minimum statutory contract requirements.
Under the Act, it was Mader’s burden to supply the Balashes with a written contract. See I.C. § 24-5-11-10(a) (“A real property improvement supplier shall provide a completed real property improvement contract to the consumer before it is signed by the consumer.”) (emphasis added). Mader failed to do so, and, as such, he violated the Act. Therefore, Mader cannot enforce the oral agreement against the Balashes. See Ambrose v. Dalton Const., Inc., 51 N.E.3d 320, 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (stating that violation of Act makes contract unenforceable against consumer) (opinion on reh’g), trans. denied. Consequently, the trial court’s award of damages to Mader is clearly erroneous and must be set aside. See Cyr v. J. Yoder, Inc., 762 N.E.2d 148, 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (setting aside damage award in favor of contractors because they violated Act by failing to have consumer sign contract). Our holding reflects our continued mindfulness that the Act was passed to protect consumers from abuse and that contractors are therefore held to a strict standard. See Benge, 855 N.E.2d at 720.
Conclusion
Thus, in light of the foregoing, we conclude that Mader’s dealings with the Balashes were governed by the Act and that the damage award entered for Mader must be set aside.
Reversed with instructions to vacate the judgment for Mader.
Vaidik, J., and Brown, J., concur.