Troy R. Ashley v. Janet Christie (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 09 2019, 8:50 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE
Troy R. Ashley
Anderson, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Troy R. Ashley, October 9, 2019
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-SC-479
v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit
Court
Janet Christie, The Honorable David L. McCord,
Appellee-Defendant. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
33C03-1811-SC-880
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Troy R. Ashley appeals the small claims court’s judgment for Janet Christie
following an evidentiary hearing. Ashley raises three issues for our review,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-479 | October 9, 2019 Page 1 of 5
which we consolidate and restate as the following dispositive issue: whether the
court erred when it entered judgment for Christie. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Around late summer or early fall of 2018, Ashley met Christie on an online
dating site. At the time, Ashley owned a 1990 Chevrolet truck with more than
235,000 miles on it. After Ashley and Christie had dated for a few weeks,
Ashley agreed to title the truck in Christie’s name. Thereafter, he wrote a letter
to his insurance company stating that he no longer owned the truck because he
had sold it to Christie.
[3] After the two had ceased dating, Ashley filed a notice of claim with the small
claims court. In his notice, Ashley alleged that he was the rightful owner of the
truck. Ashley demanded either that Christie return the truck to him or that she
pay him $2,700 for the truck.
[4] The court held an evidentiary hearing on Ashley’s claim, at which both Ashley
and Christie appeared. Ashley testified that he and Christie had an oral
agreement for her to have the truck for a little while to assist her in getting to
and from work but that she would then return the truck to him. According to
Ashley, he titled the truck in Christie’s name pursuant to that agreement.
[5] Christie, however, testified that Ashley had given the truck to her as a gift.
And, when the court asked Ashley if he had written a letter to his insurance
company stating that he had transferred the truck to Christie, Ashley
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-479 | October 9, 2019 Page 2 of 5
responded, “Yeah.” Tr. Vol. II at 11. The court then entered judgment for
Christie, and this appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Ashley appeals the trial court’s judgment for Christie. As our Supreme Court
has explained:
We review the facts determined in a bench trial with due regard
given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess witness
credibility under the clearly erroneous standard. 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. . . .
As a preliminary matter, we observe that [the appellee] has not
filed a brief. Under that circumstance, we do not undertake to
develop an argument on the appellee’s behalf, but rather may
reverse upon an appellant’s prima facie showing of reversible
error. Prima facie error in this context is defined as, “at first sight,
on first appearance, or on the face it.”
Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196, 1198-99 (Ind. 2008) (cleaned up). Under our
clearly erroneous standard of review, we consider whether the evidence
supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. See, e.g.,
Town of Brownsburg v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597, 601
(Ind. 2019). We will not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of
the witnesses. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-479 | October 9, 2019 Page 3 of 5
[7] As an initial matter, we note that Ashley frames his appeal around Indiana
Trial Rule 60(B). But Ashley did not file a post-judgment, Rule 60(B) motion
for relief from judgment in the trial court. Instead, he immediately pursued this
appeal. As there was no motion or judgment under Trial Rule 60(B) in the trial
court, we disregard Ashley’s incorrect characterization of this appeal.
[8] On the merits of his appeal, Ashley asserts that the trial court erred in the
admission of evidence. Our trial courts have broad discretion in the admission
of evidence, and we review those decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.
See, e.g., Fansler v. State, 100 N.E.3d 250, 253 (Ind. 2018). An abuse of
discretion occurs “only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect
of the facts and circumstances” before the trial court. Id.
[9] First, Ashley asserts that the trial court erroneously refused to admit vehicle-
maintenance records he had submitted to show that he had maintained the
truck. But the only page of those records that is included in the record on
appeal shows that Ashley paid for maintenance on the truck in early September
of 2018. 1 There was no dispute that Ashley owned the truck around the time of
that maintenance, and so there was no relevance to that record. Accordingly,
the trial court did not err in refusing to consider it.
1
In his brief, Ashley asserts that there are other maintenance records. However, having not included those
records in the record on appeal, we have no way of determining their prejudicial value, if any, assuming for
the sake of argument that the trial court even erred in excluding those records. Accordingly, Ashley has not
met his burden on appeal to demonstrate any error based on those additional records.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-479 | October 9, 2019 Page 4 of 5
[10] Second, Ashley asserts that the trial court erred when it accepted into evidence
submissions offered by Christie. But Ashley did not object to the admission of
that evidence in the trial court. Instead, he conceded that Christie’s evidence at
least in part correctly showed that he had, in writing, informed his insurance
company that he had transferred ownership of the truck to Christie. There is no
error on this issue.
[11] Third, Ashley asserts that the trial court erroneously entered judgment for
Christie because Ashley’s submitted evidence and testimony is “sufficient” to
support judgment for him. Appellant’s Br. at 7. Be that as it may, Ashley’s
request is for this Court to reweigh the evidence and credibility of the witnesses,
which we will not do. The trial court’s judgment is supported by Christie’s
testimony and Ashley’s concession regarding his writing to the insurance
company, and we cannot say the court erred when it gave controlling weight to
that evidence instead of the evidence Ashley prefers.
[12] Finally, Ashley asserts that Christie has been unjustly enriched by being
allowed to keep the truck. But this argument is derivative of his above
arguments. That is, having concluded that the trial court did not err in entering
judgment for Christie, we likewise cannot say that Christie has been unjustly
enriched. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s judgment for Christie.
[13] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-479 | October 9, 2019 Page 5 of 5