ILNews

COA reverses small claims judgment

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a small claims court judgment because it was troubled by the court's outright refusal to give the plaintiff a chance to introduce evidence to refute a counterclaim.

In Robert A. Elrod v. Larry Brooks, No. 10A01-0903-CV-155, Robert Elrod appealed the small claims court's judgment in favor of Larry Brooks, who was the defendant in Elrod's suit and filed a counterclaim for theft and conversion. Elrod filed his original complaint alleging Brooks never gave him the title or bill of sale for two trailers he purchased from Brooks.

The small claims court knew there was a complaint and counterclaim before Elrod presented his case. After he finished, the judge asked if Elrod wanted to present any more evidence, to which Elrod said no. Then Brooks brought his case; Elrod asked to let witnesses dispute Brooks' claims, but the judge refused.

The small claims judge said he had given Elrod a chance to present his case and Brooks didn't present anything surprising or shocking. He also said letting Elrod present his case again would be like starting over, which he can't allow. The court granted judgment in Brooks' favor and ordered Elrod to pay $3,000 in damages.

The Court of Appeals determined the small claims court erred in denying Elrod the opportunity to present evidence on Brooks' counterclaim. It recognized the great amount of discretion the small claims court has in conducting proceedings before it, but it erred in not letting Elrod try to refute Brooks' counterclaim, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

There's nothing in the Small Claims Rules that would prevent it from following the Rules of Trial Procedure, as the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in Bowman v. Kitchel, 644 N.E.2d 878, 879 (Ind. 1995). In that case, the high court decided that the Rules of Trial Procedure apply in small claims court unless the particular rule in question is inconsistent with something the small claims rules.

"Even if it was the small claims court's intention that Elrod should have presented all his evidence which supported his claim and contested Brooks' counterclaim at the same time, the court never shared this intent with the parties," Judge Riley wrote. "Regardless, it would still be dubious for Elrod to have to defend against a claim before hearing the evidence in support of it. Although informality is the key in small claims proceedings, it should not come at the cost of fundamental rights of the parties."

The appellate court remanded for a new trial.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT