Opinion
24A-SC-652
08-09-2024
Tim Sibbitt, Appellant-Defendant v. Paul Garrett, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT David W. Stone IV Stone Law Office & Legal Research.
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Decatur Superior Court The Honorable Kenneth R. Bass, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 16D01-2401-SC-000013
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT David W. Stone IV Stone Law Office & Legal Research.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Felix, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[¶1] In 2013, Paul Garrett began renting property from Tim Sibbitt. According to Garrett, he rented not only a house but also a garage from Sibbitt, with the garage costing Garrett an extra $15 per week in rent. In early 2024, Garrett sued Sibbitt in small claims court to recover the garage rental because he claimed Sibbitt prevented him from using that garage by failing to remove items therefrom. After a bench trial, the small claims court awarded Garrett the full balance of the rent he paid for the garage for ten years. Sibbitt now appeals and presents one issue for our review: Whether the trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of Garrett.
[¶2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] On June 20, 2013, Garrett and his then-wife began renting a house from Sibbitt. The rent was originally to be $240 per week, but that amount was crossed out in the lease and increased to $255 per week. According to Garrett, the additional $15 he paid in rent every week was for use of the garage on the property. However, Garrett never had full use of the garage because Sibbitt stored items in there such as cabinetry. Sometime before early 2024, Sibbitt sold the property; Garrett is now renting the house from the new landlord.
The lease was not admitted into evidence during the trial. Our understanding of the lease comes entirely from the transcript of the trial.
[¶4] On January 26, 2024, Garrett filed a notice of claim in the small claims court, claiming that Sibbitt owed him $7,800 for the ten years that Garrett paid Sibbitt $15 more in rent every week without full use of the garage. On February 27, 2024, the small claims court held a bench trial on Garrett's claim. Both Garrett and Sibbitt represented themselves. Garrett testified that he and Sibbitt agreed that Garret would pay "$15 extra dollars a week" for Garrett to rent the garage; however, Sibbitt left items in the garage and "[a]ny time I complained about the stuff being in there to where I could use the garage properly, I was usually told I wasn't happy and that I should move." Tr. Vol. II at 5. Garrett said that "along the years[, Sibbitt] would have his maintenance guys put stuff in there [the garage]" and that he "never really got to use the garage to its full benefits." Id. at 6.
[¶5] Garrett further testified that "one of [Sibbitt's] maintenance men also tore the power line down going to the garage" more than once, and after the second time, the power company would not fix it, "so the line was just taken off by [Sibbitt's] maintenance men." Tr. Vol. II at 6. This left Garrett without heating and lighting in the garage for approximately the last four years that Sibbitt owned the property. When the small claims court asked Garrett why he had not "br[ought] this cause of action sooner," Garrett stated he "didn't want to take my landlord to Court and get thrown out." Id. at 12.
[¶6] Sibbitt testified that he did "not know anything about this $255" and that if I had stuff in there [the garage] it's stuff for the house....
[W]ell, I assume it's his stuff for his house. Instead of putting it outside they put it in the garage, and I didn't even have a key to that, the garage. He had total control of the garage. I didn't even have a key to it. I didn't even know I had stuff in there ....Tr. Vol. II at 13. Sibbitt could not recall having any conversations with Garrett in which Garrett requested he remove items from the garage.
[¶7] After the bench trial concluded, the small claims court issued an order entering judgment in favor of Garrett and awarded him $7,800. This appeal ensued.
Sibbitt fails to include relevant facts in his Statement of Facts as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(6), and he fails to provide citations for many statements of fact in his Statement of Facts and Argument as required by Appellate Rules 46(A)(6)(a) and 46(A)(8)(a), respectively. We also observe that Sibbitt claims Garrett was a "holdover tenant," Appellant's Br. at 7; see also id. at 8; however, Sibbitt provides no citation in support of this statement, and we can find no support for it in the record. We remind counsel that the purpose of our appellate rules-especially Appellate Rule 46 governing the content of briefs-"is to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case." Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023) (emphasis added) (quoting Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021)). Nevertheless, Sibbitt's noncompliance with Appellate Rule 46 does not substantially impede our review of his claim, so we choose to address the merits thereof. See Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015).
Discussion and Decision
[¶8] Sibbitt argues the small claims court's judgment in favor of Garrett is "contrary to law." Appellant's Br. at 6. Judgments rendered by a small claims court are "subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes." Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A). "We generally review small claims judgments for clear error, giving considerable deference to the small claims court and its assessment of witness credibility." Piccadilly Mgmt. v. Abney, 215 N.E.3d 1078, 1079 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023) (citing Muldowney v. Lincoln Park, LLC, 83 N.E.3d 130, 132 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017)). "This deferential standard of review is particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are informal, 'with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice' between parties according to the rules of substantive law." Branham v. Varble, 952 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. 2011) (citing Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196, 1199 (Ind. 2008)).
We consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. [Berryhill v. Parkview Hosp., 962 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012).] However, we still review issues of substantive law de novo. Id. The burdens of proof are the same in a small claims suit as they would have been if suit had been filed in a trial court of general jurisdiction. Martin v. Ramos, 120 N.E.3d 244, 249 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019).N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Josh's Lawn &Snow, LLC, 130 N.E.3d 1191, 1193 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019).
[¶9] Notably, Garrett did not file a brief in this case, so we review to determine if Sibbitt "has made a prima facie showing of reversible error." Ferguson v. State, 40 N.E.3d 954, 957 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) (citing Cox v. State, 780 N.E.2d 1150, 1162 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002)). "Prima facie means at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it." Posso v. State, 180 N.E.3d 326, 336 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021) (quoting Vukovich v. Coleman, 789 N.E.2d 520, 524 n.4 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003)).
[¶10] Sibbitt specifically contends that Garrett waived his claim for repayment, that Garrett's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, or both. Waiver and the statute of limitations are affirmative defenses. Ind. Trial Rule 8(C). In small claims court, affirmative defenses are "deemed at issue without responsive pleadings," but the defendant still bears the burden of proving these defenses. Ind. Small Claims Rule 4(A). Here, the facts before the small claims court clearly established the affirmative defense of statute of limitations. In particular, Garrett claimed overpayment of rent for ten years, but the statute of limitations clearly limits Garrett's recovery to only six of those ten years, see I.C. § 34-11-2-7. Therefore, Sibbitt has made a prima facie showing of reversible error.
There was no evidence that clearly established the affirmative defense of waiver.
[¶11] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Garrett is entitled to recover only six years' worth of damages, which amounts to $4,680. We therefore affirm that part of the small claims court's judgment awarding Garrett overpaid rent for the last six years of his lease with Sibbitt, reverse that part of the small claims court's judgment awarding Garrett overpaid rent for the first four years of his lease with Sibbitt, and remand for the small claims court to enter judgment in favor of Garrett in the amount of $4,680.
[¶12] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Riley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.