Ryan Lynch v. Patrick Johnson (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 02 2020, 8:43 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Christopher P. Jeter
Erica Guernsey
Fishers, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ryan Lynch, November 2, 2020
Appellant-Defendant/Counterclaimant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-SC-355
v. Appeal from the Hamilton
Superior Court
Patrick Johnson, The Honorable Gail Z. Bardach,
Appellee-Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant. Judge
The Honorable Darren J. Murphy,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
29D06-1902-SC-1379
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-355 | November 2, 2020 Page 1 of 10
Case Summary
[1] Patrick Johnson brought a small claims action against Ryan Lynch, asserting
that Lynch did not pay him for his work in designing a website for Lynch’s
company. Lynch counterclaimed, asserting that Johnson’s work on a prior
project involving a mobile application was incomplete. The small claims court
found in favor of Johnson on his claim and denied relief to Lynch on his
counterclaim.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Lynch is the founder and director of a non-profit organization called
Indianapolis Ace Academy (Ace), 1 which informs and educates youth about
aviation. Johnson is a software designer. In 2017, Lynch hired Johnson to
design a mobile phone application for Ace (the mobile app project), and
thereafter he hired Johnson to design a website for a frozen yogurt shop in
which Lynch is an owner. Lynch paid Johnson in full for both of those
projects.
[4] Thereafter, in or around May 2018, Lynch hired Johnson to design an updated
website for Ace (the Ace website project). The parties did not have a written
contract for the Ace website project, but they did exchange emails about it. On
1
The organization is now known as NARY Foundation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-355 | November 2, 2020 Page 2 of 10
June 5, 2018, Johnson’s project manager, Colleen Zana, emailed Lynch on
behalf of Johnson stating that the Ace website project was estimated to require
thirty hours of work over the course of four weeks. On June 7, Lynch emailed
Zana advising that he wanted to proceed and asking her to schedule the project.
On June 30, 2018, Johnson emailed Lynch to let him know that “[t]he new site
design is done,” and Johnson attached a link to the website. Exhibits Vol. at 8.
Johnson added, “There are still a few things I might want to tweak” but asked
Lynch to let him know “if this looks good for now and I can make it live.” Id.
Lynch replied to Johnson by email about half an hour later, stating “I love the
new layout” and calling it “[o]utstanding,” and Lynch directed Johnson to “go
live” with it. Id.
[5] On July 3, 2018, Johnson sent an invoice to Lynch for the Ace website project
reflecting 30 hours of work at $90 per hour, for a total of $2700. The invoice
indicated payment was due August 3, 2018, and “overdue payments are subject
to interest charge.” Id. at 13. On September 10, 2018, Lynch texted Johnson,
apologizing for not getting back with him and stating, “I owe you some money
from the websites and [am] not ignoring you.” Id. at 11. Lynch explained that
he had not yet received expected grant money that he had planned to use to pay
for the Ace website project and offered, “Can I make payments (out of pocket)
personally to you until I can pay it off?” Id. Lynch did not pay Johnson.
[6] On the afternoon of December 10, 2018, Zana emailed Lynch stating that the
Ace website project bill had not been paid and that “we must insist on a full
payment” of the $2700 invoice by December 31. Id. at 22. Lynch responded
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-355 | November 2, 2020 Page 3 of 10
that he had been waiting “on sponsorship funding to come in,” to which Zana
responded that Johnson had already extended “a very gracious time frame
without interest” and that there “was never an agreement that [Johnson] . . .
would wait . . . for you to receive [] funds from another source in order to pay
[Johnson] for his services.” Id. at 20-21. Zana offered that Johnson was willing
to accept payment of half of the invoice by the end of December and the other
half by the end of January 2019. Lynch replied that he was in contact with his
legal team.
[7] Later that same day, Johnson advised Lynch that his legal team should contact
Johnson directly and that he “went ahead and removed [his] work from
[Lynch’s] website” but would “be happy to implement it back when the
payment is made in full.” Id. at 19. The two exchanged further emails. Lynch
told Johnson that he had already informed Johnson that Ace expected to
receive end-of-year funding and that Johnson had taken “illegal” and
“unauthorized” actions in changing the Ace website. Appellant’s Appendix at 29.
Johnson replied that the only work removed was “the work that has not been
paid for” and offered to “reinstate the design I have done for your website on
the basis of good faith if you agree to have the invoice paid in full by the end of
January 2019[.]” Exhibits Vol. at 18.
[8] On Tuesday, February 6, 2019, Johnson emailed Lynch to advise that, if he did
not hear back from Lynch with arrangements to pay, he would be filing a legal
action later that week. On February 8, 2019, Johnson filed a small claims
complaint for “non payment for website design and build for Ace Academy,”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-355 | November 2, 2020 Page 4 of 10
seeking judgment against Lynch for $4050, comprised of the $2700 invoice and
$1350 in expenses incurred for the collection of the amount owed. Appellant’s
Appendix at 21.
[9] On February 27, Lynch sent an email to Johnson stating that the Ace website
project “is NOT done” and that Johnson had inappropriately removed it, which
affected sales and interrupted operations. Exhibits Vol. at 16 (emphasis in
original). On March 4, 2019, Johnson emailed Lynch, advising that he had
filed a small claims action but offering to dismiss the action if Lynch would
“like to go ahead and submit payment for the money you owe by the end of this
week[,]” which Johnson stated was $2700 per the invoice and $1350 for time,
interest, and the money he was “having to spend to get the money that you
owe[.]” Id. at 15.
[10] On June 21, 2019, Lynch filed a small claims counterclaim. The counterclaim
asserted that in June 2017, Lynch paid Johnson $5400 for the mobile app
project, but the app was “never [] created.” Appellant’s Appendix at 46. Lynch
requested return of the $5400 plus legal fees from Johnson.
[11] After a series of reset hearings for a variety of reasons, the court held a hearing
on January 9, 2020. Both parties were present in person; Lynch was
represented by counsel, and Johnson was not.
[12] Johnson testified that he and Lynch agreed “via email and phone” that Johnson
would design the Ace website. Transcript at 7. Johnson further testified that
“[Lynch] specifically requested over the phone to not have a contract on this
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-355 | November 2, 2020 Page 5 of 10
one” and Johnson agreed because he “trusted him[.]” Id. at 13. Johnson
testified that the agreed rate was $90 per hour, which Johnson stated was a
discount from his normal rate of $120 per hour, and that he had estimated 30
hours, noting “it actually took more . . . but I decided to keep true to the
estimate.” Id. at 6.
[13] Johnson also described his unsuccessful attempts to collect the money from
Lynch and presented the court with the emails described above. Johnson
maintained that all the projects he did for Lynch were completed and worked
properly. Johnson explained that he did not “deactivate” the Ace website but,
rather, “simply removed [his] work from the website.” Id. at 8. He stated that
the additional $1350 requested in his claim was for interest and his time and
effort expended to collect the fee for the Ace website project, but told the court,
“I’d be happy with the $2700 at this point.” Id. at 6.
[14] Lynch testified that, at some point after September 2018, he had asked Johnson
to fix “some glitches” in the website, and Johnson said he would do so but
never did, instead removing his work from the Ace website. Id. at 17. Lynch
stated that this removal caused him to not have access to the Ace website and
required him to expend money to start a new website and lose sales. Johnson
responded that there were no glitches as claimed, but recalled that Lynch had at
some point after completion asked Johnson to add an “additional feature,”
namely a photo gallery, which Johnson testified he “was going to provide at no
additional cost” if Lynch had paid him. Id. at 28.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-355 | November 2, 2020 Page 6 of 10
[15] With regard to the counterclaim, Lynch testified that Johnson never completed
the mobile app project, maintaining, “I have no app[,]” and asking for return of
the $5400 he paid Johnson in 2017. Id. at 17. Johnson’s position was twofold.
First, Johnson stated that the $5400 that Lynch was seeking in his counterclaim
was for “a separate project that was for an application design” and was “totally
separate from this [Ace] website project.” Id. at 3. Second, Johnson asserted
that he was hired by Lynch to design the mobile app, along with a working
prototype, and that he did so (and was paid in full), and that he was not hired to
develop a working mobile app, which is considerably more expensive and
beyond his skills. He testified, “I don’t know how to develop mobile apps so
that was never an agreement, I would never agree to develop a mobile app.” Id.
at 24.
[16] The small claims court took the matter under advisement and issued an order
on January 14, 2020, finding in favor of Johnson on his complaint and denying
relief to Lynch on his counterclaim. The court awarded Johnson damages of
$2700, the amount of the original invoice. Lynch now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[17] Initially, we observe that Johnson did not file an appellee’s brief. Under such a
circumstance, we do not undertake to develop an argument on his behalf, and
we may reverse upon a prima facie showing of reversible error. Heartland
Crossing Found., Inc. v. Dotlich, 976 N.E.2d 760, 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Prima
facie error, in this context, means “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-355 | November 2, 2020 Page 7 of 10
face [of] it.” Id. (quoting Carter v. Grace Whitney Props., 939 N.E.2d 630, 633-34
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). “This standard, however, ‘does not relieve us of our
obligation to correctly apply the law to the facts in the record in order to
determine whether reversal is required.’” WindGate Properties, LLC v. Sanders,
93 N.E.3d 809, 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Wharton v. State, 42 N.E.3d
539, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)).
[18] The burden of proof in a small claims civil suit is the same as it would be had
the case been filed in a general trial court. Harris v. Lafayette LIHTC, LP, 85
N.E.3d 871, 876 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). We will affirm a judgment in favor of
the party bearing the burden of proof “if the evidence was such that from it a
reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the elements of the party’s claim
were established by a preponderance of evidence.” Id. Our standard of review
in small claims cases is particularly deferential in order to preserve the speedy
and informal process for small claims. Dotlich, 976 N.E.2d at 762. We neither
reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Id. We will not
set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id.
[19] Here, the small claims court entered judgment in favor of Johnson in the
amount of $2700. Lynch maintains that the trial court’s decision was in error
because there was no enforceable contract between the parties as an essential
element was missing, namely, a meeting of the minds as to the terms of their
agreement, including “the actual service to be received, price, scope of
agreement, and more.” Appellant’s Brief at 6. He argues this lack of a meeting
of the minds is evidenced by the parties’ “conflicting testimony” that he urges
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-355 | November 2, 2020 Page 8 of 10
“laid bare their lack of understanding as to what each was contracting for or to
do.” Id. at 7. We disagree and find no error with the small claims court’s
decision.
[20] The evidence reveals that Lynch had worked with Johnson on two projects and
thereafter hired Johnson in early June 2018 for the Ace website project.
Johnson provided Lynch with an estimate of the number of hours that would be
required to “build” the website, and Lynch directed Johnson to “go ahead”
with it. Exhibits Vol. at 6, 9. On June 30, when Johnson sent Lynch a link to
the design, Lynch responded that he “love[d]” it and wanted Johnson to go
ahead and “go live” with it. Id. at 8. There was no mention by Lynch that he
was in any way dissatisfied or that it was not complete. Lynch texted Johnson
several months later, in September, acknowledging that he owed Johnson
money and offering to personally pay him; he did not indicate dissatisfaction
with the Ace website or assert that it was in some way incomplete.
[21] Johnson repeatedly asked for payment, and eventually removed content he had
created from the Ace website in December 2018. More than two months later,
on February 27, 2019, Lynch indicated he was not going to pay and claimed
that the website was “NOT done[.]” Id. at 16. Lynch’s testimony, while stating
that “glitches” existed in the Ace website, did not specifically identify what
those were. Transcript at 17. Contrary to Lynch’s claim, the facts do not reflect
a lack of agreement; they reflect that Lynch, who had failed to pay for months,
was angry that Johnson had removed the content from the Ace website. We
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-355 | November 2, 2020 Page 9 of 10
find that the evidence most favorable to the judgment supports the small claim’s
court’s conclusion that Lynch owes Johnson $2700 for the Ace website project.
[22] As to Lynch’s counterclaim, the evidence was that Johnson was hired for the
mobile app project during or before 2017 and was paid in full ($5400) in June
2017. Lynch at no time after making payment expressed that he did not receive
what he hired Johnson to create. In fact, Lynch chose to hire Johnson for the
Ace website project a year later; from this, the court could reasonably infer that
Lynch was satisfied with Johnson’s work on the mobile app project. It was not
until June 2019, when Lynch filed his counterclaim, that he asserted the app
was “never [] created” and that he did not receive $5400 worth of services from
Johnson. Appellant’s Appendix at 46. At trial, Lynch suggested that all he got for
his money was “a picture of an app,” but Johnson testified that he produced a
design along with a working “fully clickable” prototype – not just a picture – for
Lynch to provide to another party to use in developing an app, should Lynch
desire to do so. Transcript at 15, 31. The trial court weighed the credibility of
the witnesses and declined to find in favor of Lynch on his counterclaim. We
find no error with the court’s decision.
[23] The court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous.
[24] Judgment affirmed.
Riley, J. and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-355 | November 2, 2020 Page 10 of 10