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 state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.