SYRACUSE — On Monday, Dec. 16, Michael DeWitt filed a second amended complaint against Dustin and Lindsey Johns in response to Judge Christopher D. Kehler’s, Kosciusko Superior Court 4, ruling on Dec. 9, to dismiss due to insufficient details pending an amended complaint.

In count I-fraud, the complaint describes how Dustin Johns was the president and majority shareholder of Travel Lite and his wife, Lindsey, was in senior management at Travel Lite which included preparation and oversight of the company’s accounting and financial records.

The complaint continues that the Johns both had knowledge of Travel Lite’s financial condition and acted with full knowledge and authority of each other. DeWitt entered into a purchase agreement for real estate at 11199 NE Wawasee, Drive, Syracuse, valued at $4 million with Johns on July 14, 2018. This purchase agreement was entered as Exhibit A. The legal description of the real estate in the purchase agreement was entered as Exhibit B.

On or about July 20, 2018, Johns offered DeWitt three and a half shares of Travel Lite stock valued at $2.1 million as partial payment along with $1.885 million in cash and $15,000 earnest money deposit. This purchase agreement amendment was entered as Exhibit C.

Financial statements for Travel Lite sent by Dustin Johns and with the actual knowledge and authorization of Lindsey provided to DeWitt’s realtor and agent Eric Hamman were attached as Exhibit D.

DeWitt and Johns then entered into a stock purchase agreement, entered as Exhibit E, which documented and restated the terms of the purchase agreement amendment and provided for the transfer of Travel Lite stock in exchange for the $2.1 million toward the real estate.

DeWitt and the Johns entered into a warranty deed for the real estate on Sept. 13, 2018, which has been entered as Exhibit F. This deed transferred the title to the real estate to both Johns jointly.

According to the second amended complaint, the financial statements provided “which were prepared by or at the direction of both defendants, and under both of their supervision, were materially inaccurate or falsified to show a net profit, when in fact Travel Lite, Inc., was at that time operating at or near a net loss.” It continues stating that the Johns also offered verbal misrepresentations of the stock value knowing them to be false and fraudulent, causing DeWitt damages.

For count II-breach of contract against Dustin Johns, DeWitt claims Johns failed to perform and breached the purchase agreement, purchase agreement amendment and stock purchase agreement by accepting transfer of the real estate but failing to transfer Travel Lite stock with an actual value of $2.1 million. Therefore, Johns did not reflect the complete financial status of the corporation which results in DeWitt sustaining damages in the amount of at least $2.1 million.

In regards to count III-specific performance, DeWitt claims the real estate is unique and cannot be replaced and so he is entitled to the return of the real estate. The return of the real estate would be based upon DeWitt’s return of the partial consideration received from the Johns.

In count IV-violation of Indiana Uniform Securities Act, DeWitt maintains, according to the complaint, that Dustin Johns “employed a device, scheme or artifice to defraud plaintiff by providing him with fraudulent financial information regarding Travel Lite, Inc. and the Travel Lite stock in connection with the sale and transfer of the Travel Lite stock to plaintiff.” The sale of the Travel Lite stock in exchange for the real estate is a transaction covered under the Indiana Uniform Securities Act.

In his amended complaint, DeWitt is requesting judgment be entered against John “in an amount reasonably sufficient to compensate plaintiff for all damages suffered, including the value of the consideration given by plaintiff to defendant Dustin R. Johns for the Travel Lite stock, plus 8% interest, the costs of this action, reasonable expenses incurred in the prosecution of this action, including attorney fees, and for all other just and proper relief in the premises.”