Judges uphold refund to pilot unhappy with plane rental’s service

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who prepaid into an account to be used when he rented planes to fly is entitled to a refund of $1,755.88 from a company offering flight instruction and rentals, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled. The judges rejected the company’s claims that the small claims court erred by ruling in the pilot’s favor.

Anthony Trojnar rented planes over the course of several years from Eagle Aircraft. As part of an arrangement with Eagle Aircraft, he would deposit $1,250 into his account at a time, which would give him a $100 credit from the company, so he wouldn’t have to pay every time he came in to rent a plane. Dissatisfied that Eagle Aircraft would frequently tell him at the last minute that the plane he had booked was unavailable, Trojnar sought to close his account and for the $1,855.88 in it to be returned.

He filed a small claims action in Porter Superior Court, in which Eagle Aircraft presented a document, “Course Refund Policy” signed by Trojnar, that said prepaid flight accounts are nonrefundable except under extenuating circumstances. Trojnar agreed the contract applied to him and admitted that he was not entitled to a $100 credit in his account, but the rest of the money was his. Eagle Aircraft claimed that Trojnar had $1,500 worth of credits in his account and was only entitled $355.88.

The small claims court ruled in favor of Trojnar, awarding him the $1,755.88.

Eagle Aircraft appealed on three grounds: whether the court, in taking Eagle Aircraft’s Ind. Trial Rule 41(B) motion under advisement and subsequently adjourning the hearing, denied it an opportunity to introduce evidence; whether the court abused its discretion or erred in finding, as amended by its order on Eagle Aircraft’s motion to correct errors, in Trojnar’s favor; and whether Trojnar was unjustly enriched by the court’s order.

Citing Redmond v. United Airlines, Inc., 165 Ind. App. 395, 332 N.E.2d 804 (1975), among other cases, the appellate court ruled, “Under the circumstances, in which the trial court in a small claims matter invited the defendant to present evidence following the defendant’s Ind. Trial Rule 41(B) motion, we conclude that the court did not deny Eagle Aircraft the opportunity to present evidence when it took its Trial Rule 41(B) motion under advisement.”

The court did not err in finding in Trojnar’s favor nor was he unjustly enriched, the judges held in Eagle Aircraft, Inc. v. Anthony Trojnar,

“It was only through the presentation of evidence at the small claims trial and motion to correct errors hearing that established Defendant’s Exhibit A governed the relationship between the parties. Recognizing that the trial court was in the best position to weigh the evidence and that small claims actions are informal and have the goal of dispensing speedy justice, we cannot say that the court’s ruling that Trojnar demonstrated extenuating circumstances was clearly erroneous, and we conclude that the court did not err in ruling in Trojnar’s favor,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.