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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT