Message
×
loading..

Rodney W. Robinson v. Arthur Cashwell & Roxie Battle ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not
    be regarded as precedent or cited
    before any court except for the purpose                            FILED
    of establishing the defense of res                              Apr 12 2012, 8:48 am
    judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law
    of the case.                                                           CLERK
    of the supreme court,
    court of appeals and
    tax court
    APPELLANT PRO SE:
    RODNEY W. ROBINSON
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    RODNEY W. ROBINSON,                               )
    )
    Appellant-Plaintiff,                      )
    )
    vs.                                )      No. 45A03-1107-SC-351
    )
    ARTHUR CASHWELL & ROXIE BATTLE,                   )
    )
    Appellees-Defendants.                     )
    APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Catheron Paros, Judge Pro Tempore
    Cause No. 45D07-1011-SC-791
    April 12, 2012
    MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    BARNES, Judge
    Case Summary
    Rodney Robinson appeals the small claims court’s entry of judgment against him
    and in favor of Arthur Cashwell and Roxie Battle (collectively, “the Defendants”) on
    Robinson’s claim against them. We affirm.
    Issues
    Robinson raises three issues, which we reorder and restate as:
    I.     whether the small claims court properly entered
    judgment against him;
    II.    whether the small claims court properly denied his
    request for a continuance; and
    III.   whether the Cashwell’s actions constituted criminal
    conversion.
    Facts
    The Defendants own apartments in Gary. On December 21, 2009, Robinson
    leased an apartment owned by the Defendants. At that time, Cashwell thought Robinson
    owned a white Chevy 350 pickup truck. Robinson actually owned a box truck. Robinson
    moved into the apartment the next day and parked his truck in the parking lot. On
    December 23, 2009, Robinson took a bus to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On December 24,
    2009, another tenant was concerned that the truck was suspicious looking and called the
    police. The police searched the truck and found no contraband. Cashwell did not know
    the truck belonged to Robinson or any other tenant and had it towed.
    On November 8, 2010, Robinson filed a claim against the Defendants alleging that
    they improperly had his truck towed. Robinson sought damages in the amount of $905,
    2
    which included towing fees, the $40 he paid a friend to try to get the truck back while he
    was out of town, transportation expenses while his truck was impounded, bus fare from
    Pittsburgh, the cost to have the lock on the truck fixed, and the costs of litigation. On
    December 8, 2010, a hearing was held on Robinson’s claim, and the small claims court
    entered judgment against Robinson and in favor of the Defendants. Robinson filed a
    motion to correct error and, after a hearing at which Robinson did not appear, the small
    claims court denied the motion to correct error. Robinson now appeals.1
    Analysis
    “We review facts from a bench trial under the clearly erroneous standard with due
    deference paid to the trial court’s opportunity to assess witness credibility.” Branham v.
    Varble, 
    952 N.E.2d 744
    , 746 (Ind. 2011).               This deferential standard of review is
    particularly important in small claims actions because the trials are informal with the sole
    objective of dispensing speedy justice between parties according to the rules of
    substantive law. 
    Id.
     “It is incumbent upon the party who bears the burden of proof to
    demonstrate that it is entitled to the recovery sought.” Eppl v. DiGiacomo, 
    946 N.E.2d 646
    , 649 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Because Robinson bore the burden of proof on his claim
    before the small claims court, he appeals from a negative judgment. See 
    id.
     “We will not
    reverse a negative judgment unless it is contrary to law. A judgment is contrary to law
    when the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion, but the trial court
    reached a different conclusion.” 
    Id.
     (citation omitted).
    1
    No transcript of the hearing exists. Robinson filed a verified statement of the evidence pursuant to
    Indiana Appellate Rule 31(A). The small claims court refused to certify Robinson’s statement of the
    evidence and filed its own verified statement of the evidence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 31(D).
    3
    As a preliminary matter, we note that the Defendants have not filed an appellee’s
    brief.    Under that circumstance, we do not undertake to develop the Defendants’
    arguments. See Branham, 952 N.E.2d at 746. Rather, we will reverse on Robinson’s
    prima facie showing of reversible error. See id.
    I. Judgment against Robinson
    Robinson argues that the small claims court erred in finding against him on his
    complaint to recover damages associated with the towing of his truck. He asserts that the
    small claims court improperly demanded proof of ownership when his possessory interest
    and ownership of the truck were uncontested. At the hearing, Cashwell asserted that the
    rental application showed Robinson owned a white Chevy pickup truck and that he did
    not know that the box truck belonged to a tenant when he had it towed. In support of this
    assertion, the rental application indicating such was admitted into evidence without any
    objection from Robinson. At the conclusion of the hearing, the small claims court asked
    Robinson if he had any evidence that he presented to Cashwell to prove he owned a box
    truck instead of a pickup truck. Robinson indicated that he had the title at home and
    would like a continuance to get the title. The small claims court denied this request and
    ruled in favor of the Defendants because they “had no reason to believe the subject
    vehicle belonged to Plaintiff since it was not listed on the credit application and that the
    Defendants acted reasonably under the circumstances.” Trial Court’s Verified Statement
    of Evidence p. 13.
    At issue was whether Cashwell knew it was Robinson’s truck when he had it
    towed, not whether Robinson actually owned the truck. As such, Robinson has not
    4
    persuaded us that the small claims court required him to prove ownership of the truck in
    order to recover.
    II. Continuance
    Robinson argues that, because the small claims court required proof of ownership
    at the hearing, it abused its discretion when it denied his request to let him go home and
    get the title to the truck. “A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to continue a
    trial date is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and there is a strong presumption the trial
    court properly exercised its discretion.” Gunashekar v. Grose, 
    915 N.E.2d 953
    , 955 (Ind.
    2009). “A denial of a motion for continuance is abuse of discretion only if the movant
    demonstrates good cause for granting it.” 
    Id.
    We are not convinced that the small claims court required Robinson to prove he
    owned the truck.     Instead, the small claims court was trying to ascertain whether
    Cashwell should have known that Robinson owned the box truck when Cashwell had it
    towed. Even if Robinson could have produced the title to the truck, it would have been
    irrelevant to the resolution of this question. Robinson has not established that the small
    claims court abused its discretion in denying his request for a continuance.
    III. Criminal Conversion
    Robinson argues that Cashwell’s actions amounted to criminal conversion and
    suggests he is entitled to treble damages. Robinson, however, did not assert this criminal
    conversion theory in his complaint or at trial or request treble damages.           Although
    Robinson’s motion to correct mentions this theory of recovery, a party may not raise an
    issue for the first time in a motion to correct error or on appeal. See Troxel v. Troxel,
    5
    
    737 N.E.2d 745
    , 752 (Ind. 2000). Because Robinson did not properly raise this issue to
    the small claims court, it is waived.
    Conclusion
    Robinson has not made a prima facie showing of error on his claims that the small
    claims court improperly required him to establish ownership of the truck, that the small
    claims court abused its discretion in denying his request for a continuance, or that
    Cashwell’s actions amounted to criminal conversion. We affirm.
    Affirmed.
    KIRSCH, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 45A03-1107-SC-351

Filed Date: 4/12/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021