Ryan Adams v. Amber Baker (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 22 2017, 9:24 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
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Justin K. Clouser David Rosselot
Noel Law Rosselot Law Office
Kokomo, Indiana Kokomo, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ryan Adams, May 22, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
34A05-1607-PL-1598
v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit
Court
Amber Baker, The Honorable Lynn Murray,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
34C01-1411-PL-1011
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-PL-1598 | May 22, 2017 Page 1 of 10
Statement of the Case
[1] Ryan Adams appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Amber Baker on
Baker’s complaint for replevin and damages. Adams presents two issues for our
review, which we restate as follows:
1. Whether the trial court erred when it concluded that the
parties had an implied contract regarding the money Baker
spent on bail for Adams and on accessories for Adams’
truck.
2. Whether the trial court erred when it did not offset the
judgment by the amount Adams had paid for living
expenses when he and Baker lived together.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] From August 2011 to February 2014, Adams and Baker were involved in a
romantic relationship and lived together. In August 2011, Adams and Baker
bought a house in Kokomo on contract. Baker paid $3,000 for the down
payment, plus $500 for a pet deposit. Adams and Baker began to make
extensive renovations to the house. Baker paid a total of $1,459.49 towards
“materials used in the remodeling.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 10. Adams and
Baker also bought several new appliances that were financed through H.H.
Gregg. Baker and Adams paid $2,136.25 and $1,148, respectively, towards the
balance for the appliances.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-PL-1598 | May 22, 2017 Page 2 of 10
[4] In February 2012, Adams was arrested for driving while intoxicated. After
consulting with Adams’ mother, Baker paid $866.31 to bail Adams out of jail.
Adams did not repay Baker that money. From April through July 2013, Baker
paid “for improvements” to Adams’ truck, such as tires, a lift, lights, and a grill.
Id. at 11. Baker spent a total of $3,525.23 for those items. Adams did not repay
Baker that money.
[5] Baker moved out of the house in February 2014. On November 17, Baker filed
a complaint for replevin and damages against Adams alleging in relevant part
that Adams had been unjustly enriched by the money she had spent on the
house, appliances, Adams’ bail, and Adams’ truck. In his answer and
counterclaim, Adams alleged that Baker had been unjustly enriched by living in
the house with Adams without contributing to the rent or utility payments. In
her answer to Adams’ counterclaim, Baker alleged that Adams would have paid
the same amount in rent had Baker not lived there, and she stated that she
helped to pay some of the utilities, taxes, and “other household expenses.” Id.
at 19.
[6] Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered findings and
conclusions as follows:
1. Amber Baker (herein “Amber”) and Ryan Adams (herein
“Ryan”) were involved in a romantic relationship from August
2010 to February 2014. During most of that time, from August
2011 through February 2014, they cohabitated and shared living
expenses. The parties were never married, and have no children
together.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-PL-1598 | May 22, 2017 Page 3 of 10
2. Both parties were employed, and maintained separate bank
and credit card accounts. During their cohabitation, each
contributed his or her individual assets and income to household
expenses and items for the home.
3. In August 2011, they jointly entered into a contract to
purchase residential real estate located at 1913 Misty Autumn
Lane, Kokomo. Amber paid the required downpayment of
$3000.00 plus pet deposit of $500.00. They subsequently
completed the purchase of the real estate, and then when their
relationship ended, Amber deeded and released her interest in the
property to Ryan. He currently owns and occupies the real
estate.
4. While residing together in the home, Ryan paid all the
monthly contract and mortgage payments, except one paid by
Amber. Ryan also paid all the property tax payments except one
paid by Amber. Both parties contributed to utility payments.
5. After purchasing the home, Ryan and Amber extensively
remodeled the bathrooms. Amber paid a total of $1,459.49 for
materials used in the remodeling, $588.94 for purchases from
Menards, and $870.55 for purchases from Home Depot.
6. After purchasing the home, new appliances were purchased
and installed. Of the cost for the appliances purchased from
H.H. Gregg and financed through G.E. Capital, Amber made
payments totaling $2,136.25, and Ryan made payments totaling
$1,148.00.
7. When Amber left the property in February 2014, she took
various items of furnishings and personal property, while leaving
at the home other items of personal property and appliances.
Among the items Amber took were a Samsung 55” television and
Ipad purchased from Best Buy. Among the items left at the
residence were an entertainment center purchased from
Walmart, a desk chair, computer monitor and tower.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-PL-1598 | May 22, 2017 Page 4 of 10
8. In February 2012, Ryan was arrested for driving a vehicle
while intoxicated. Amber paid bail for Ryan to be released from
jail in the sum of $866.31, which funds were not returned or
repaid to Amber.
9. During the period April through July 2013, with Ryan’s
consent and knowledge, Amber purchased items for Ryan for
improvements to his truck, including a set of tires, lift, lights, and
grill, which items totaled $3,525.23. Said purchases were not
intended as a gift. Ryan has not reimbursed any said funds
expended by Amber for these purchases.
10. On November 17, 2014, Amber initiated this action by filing
a complaint for replevin and for damages, seeking certain items
of personal property and a judgment for funds she had expended
for or to the benefit of Ryan.
11. On January 5, 2015, Ryan filed an answer and counterclaim,
seeking a judgment or credit for funds he had expended for or to
the benefit of Amber.
12. A bench trial was held and concluded May 3, 2016. The
court took all matters under advisement pending a written order.
13. Indiana law provides “a party who cohabitates with another
person without subsequent marriage is entitled to relief upon a
showing of an express contract or a viable equitable theory such
as an implied contract or unjust enrichment.” Bright v. Kuehl, 650
N.E.2d 311, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), reh’g denied; Turner v.
Freed, 792 N.E.2d 947, 950 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
***
19. In the case here, Amber expended sums for a real estate
down payment, as well as financed extensive remodeling costs
and new appliances at the time the parties had an expectation of
sharing the property as a residence. In fact, the parties shared the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-PL-1598 | May 22, 2017 Page 5 of 10
benefit of the real estate during their cohabitation. Since their
break up, Ryan has retained the real estate with the
improvements and appliances to his sole benefit. To allow Ryan
to retain the benefit without restitution to Amber would be
unjust.
20. The court finds Amber is entitled to recover from Ryan the
$3,500.00 she paid as a down payment for the real estate,
$1,459.49 in costs she paid for remodeling the home, and
$2,136.55 she paid towards the purchase of appliances that have
remained in the home.
21. The court further finds Amber has shown there was an
implied contract for reimbursement of the $866.31 she paid for
Ryan’s bail after his arrest in 2012.
22. The court further finds Amber has shown there was an
implied contract for reimbursement of the $3,525.23 she paid for
improvements to Ryan’s truck in 2013.
23. The court declines to find that either party has a viable claim under
contract or equitable grounds against the other for recovery of other
payments made such as for household and living expenses, including
mortgage, utilities, or tax payments made. Both benefitted from these
payments for expenses incurred during their cohabitation.
24. The court also declines to find Ryan is entitled to payment or
a credit from Amber for the rental value of residence during the
parties’ cohabitation.
25. The court further finds and orders Amber is entitled to the
entertainment center currently in Ryan’s possession. She shall
retain the Samsung television.
26. The court further finds and orders Ryan shall be entitled to
the Ipad currently in Amber’s possession. He shall retain the
desk chair, computer tower and monitor.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-PL-1598 | May 22, 2017 Page 6 of 10
26. Except as specifically provided herein, each party shall retain
all other items of personal property currently in his or her
possession.
27. Based upon the above, Amber is awarded a judgment against
Ryan in the sum of $11,487.58. It is ordered, adjudged, and
decreed, the Defendant Ryan Adams shall pay the sum of
$11,487.58 to the Plaintiff Amber Baker, said sum reduced to
judgment.
Id. at 36-40 (emphasis added). This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Standard of Review
[7] Where, as here, the trial court issues findings of fact and conclusions thereon
pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), we apply a two-tiered standard of review.
Mysliwy v. Mysliwy, 953 N.E.2d 1072, 1076-77 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans.
denied. First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and
second whether the findings support the judgment. Id. at 1077. We will reverse
only if there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to
support the judgment. Id. We review the findings of fact using a clearly
erroneous standard. Id. Clear error occurs when our review of the evidence
most favorable to the judgment leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has
been made. Id. We review the conclusions of law using a de novo standard.
Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-PL-1598 | May 22, 2017 Page 7 of 10
Issue One: Implied Contract
[8] Adams first contends that the trial court erred when it concluded that he had
impliedly contracted to reimburse Baker for the money she spent on his bail and
on accessories for his truck. To recover under the theory of implied contract,
the plaintiff is usually required to establish that the defendant impliedly or
expressly requested the benefits conferred. Bright v. Kuehl, 650 N.E.2d 311, 315
(Ind. Ct. App. 1995). Any benefit, commonly the subject of pecuniary
compensation, which one, not intending it as a gift, confers upon another who
accepts it, is an adequate foundation for a legally implied or created promise to
render back its value. Id.
[9] Adams’ sole contention on this issue is that Baker had intended the bail money
and truck accessories as gifts. But Baker testified that Adams had agreed to pay
her back for those expenditures. Adams’ arguments on appeal amount to
nothing more than a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not
do. The trial court did not err when it concluded that Adams had impliedly
contracted to reimburse Baker for the money she spent on bail and truck
accessories.
Issue Two: Setoff
[10] Adams next contends that,
[i]f allowing Adams to accept the benefit of Baker’s payments
and purchases result[ed] in an unjust enrichment on his behalf, as
ruled by the trial court, then Baker’s expense[-]free lifestyle
during the period of cohabitation would also be an unjust
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-PL-1598 | May 22, 2017 Page 8 of 10
enrichment. Therefore, Adams’ contribution of mortgage
payments, utility payments, and tax payments should be taken
into account and offset any judgment owed to Baker.
Appellant’s Br. at 9. In essence, Adams contends that the trial court’s Finding
23 is not supported by the evidence. Further, without any citation to the record
on appeal, Adams alludes to an “implied contract that existed between the
parties as it pertained to mortgage, utility, and tax expenses,” which, he
maintains, also supports a setoff. Id. We cannot agree.
[11] Adams does not support this contention with citations to the record or cogent
argument. Indeed, Adams does not include in his brief on appeal any
calculation of the amount of setoff to which he claims to be entitled. Adams
merely states, without citation to evidence in the record, that his contributions
“should be taken into account and offset any judgment owed to Baker.” Id.
(emphasis added). To the extent Adams contends that Baker was unjustly
enriched as a result of living with him rent-free, again, he asks that we reweigh
the evidence, which we will not do.
[12] As Adams correctly states, to recover under an unjust enrichment claim, a
plaintiff must generally show that he rendered a benefit to the defendant at the
defendant’s express or implied request, that the plaintiff expected payment from the
defendant, and that allowing the defendant to retain the benefit without
restitution would be unjust. Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277, 296 (Ind. 2012)
(emphasis added). Adams had the burden to prove that Baker was unjustly
enriched, and, thus, he appeals from a negative judgment. See Smith v. Derm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-PL-1598 | May 22, 2017 Page 9 of 10
Assocs. of Ft. Wayne, P.C., 977 N.E.2d 1, 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Adams does
not direct us to any evidence that he expected payment from Baker for rent
while she lived with him. Indeed, the evidence shows that the parties shared
household and living expenses, with Baker helping to pay utilities and Baker’s
parents buying Adams and Baker food “most of the time.” Tr. at 40. Thus,
Adams has not demonstrated that Baker was unjustly enriched.
[13] In contrast, while both parties benefited from sharing their household and living
expenses, as the trial court found, Adams “has retained the real estate with the
improvements and appliances [purchased by both parties] to his sole benefit.
To allow [Adams] to retain the benefit without restitution to [Baker] would be
unjust.” The trial court did not err when it declined Adams’ request to offset
his contributions to the parties’ household and living expenses against any
judgment “and award no money to Baker.” Appellant’s Br. at 11.
[14] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-PL-1598 | May 22, 2017 Page 10 of 10