Yu-Ching Hsiao, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Althea Cooper, Appellee-Defendant (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Yu-Ching Hsiao (“Tenant”) appeals the small-claims court's judgment for Althea Cooper (“Landlord”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In the summer of 2024, Landlord leased an apartment to Tenant from July 29, 2024, to July 29, 2025. The rental agreement provided that the total rent for the one-year term was $15,300, payable in monthly installments of $1,275 “on or before the due date and without demand.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 23. Tenant also paid Landlord a $500 security deposit. Other provisions of the agreement included that “necessary repairs [were] to be made within 72 hours of report by [Tenant]” and that “[i]f [Tenant] does not fulfill the one year agreement, [Tenant] agrees to forfeit the entire deposit.” Id. at 23, 24.

[3] On April 3, 2025, part of the ceiling in the unit collapsed after a severe storm. Tenant immediately notified the building manager, who cleaned up the debris from the collapse that same day. A few days later, the building manager told Tenant that the ceiling would be repaired on April 14. On April 9, Tenant informed Landlord that she planned to vacate the unit and terminate the lease. Tenant moved out of the unit on April 13 and didn't pay rent for the three months remaining on the lease.

[4] In September 2025, Tenant, pro se, filed a complaint against Landlord in small-claims court seeking return of her $500 security deposit and a partial refund of April rent. She claimed that the unit became uninhabitable after Landlord failed to repair the ceiling within 72 hours of the collapse as required by the rental agreement. A month later, Landlord, also pro se, filed a counterclaim against Tenant alleging breach of the rental agreement and requesting $3,875, the balance of rent due ($3,825 for the three months after Tenant moved out plus “$50 short” from a prior month). Id. at 17. After a trial, the small-claims court entered judgment for Landlord on both claims, finding that “given [that] the clean-up of the debris by [Landlord] occurred within hours of notification and no exposure to the elements or other hazards were noted, ․ the premises were not uninhabitable and [Tenant] terminated the lease early without good cause.” Id. at 5. The court awarded Landlord “3 months rents less security deposit (or $3175).” Id.¹

[5] Tenant, still pro se, now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Tenant contends that the small-claims court erred in entering judgment for Landlord. Judgments in small-claims actions are “subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes.” Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A). “Under Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), the clearly erroneous standard applies to appellate review of facts determined in a bench trial with due regard given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess witness credibility.” Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1067 (Ind. 2006).

[7] Tenant argues that the trial court erred in finding that the apartment was not uninhabitable, citing “[t]estimony indicat[ing] exposure to rain, rust, mold, fiberglass insulation, and sewage gas” and “an admission at trial” that “Landlord knew of” “severe ceiling water leaks” before the collapse “but ignored them.” Appellant's Br. p. 4. But we cannot properly consider this issue because, despite relying on purported trial testimony to support her argument, Tenant did not provide a transcript of the small-claims court proceedings. See Ind. Appellate Rule 9(F)(5) (“If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding of fact or conclusion thereon is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the Notice of Appeal shall request a Transcript of all the evidence.”). And because there is no transcript, Tenant does not cite it in her brief (even though she refers to trial testimony at multiple points), which is required. See App. R. 46(A)(6)(a) (“The facts shall be supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix”); App. R. 46(A)(8)(a) (providing that argument must be supported by citations to “the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on”). “It is well settled that it is the appellant's burden to provide us with an adequate record to permit meaningful appellate review.” Martinez v. State, 82 N.E.3d 261, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. Because Tenant failed to do so, she has waived review of this issue. See id. at 263-64.

[8] Tenant also argues that the small-claims court erred by “award[ing] three months of future rent” because the rental agreement “limited the penalty for early termination to only the forfeiture of the security deposit” and “does not contain an acceleration clause.” Appellant's Br. pp. 1, 4. This argument fails because the award was not for “future rent” or a “penalty for early termination”; it was the amount of rent Tenant owed but failed to pay (minus the security deposit). And although the agreement stated that Tenant's failure to fulfill the one-year lease would result in forfeiture of her security deposit, this provision doesn't change or override the requirement that Tenant pay rent each month.

[9] The rental agreement provided that Tenant would pay a total of $15,300 in rent in monthly installments. Tenant moved out of the apartment and stopped paying rent in April 2025 even though the lease didn't end until July 29, 2025, leaving three months of rent unpaid. Tenant is correct that the rental agreement didn't contain an acceleration clause, but acceleration isn't at issue here because Landlord brought her counterclaim in October 2025. By that point, the lease had ended and the rent for May, June, and July 2025 was past due. See Boonville Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Cloverleaf Healthcare Servs., Inc., 834 N.E.2d 1116, 1126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (explaining that landlord “may bring actions for rent as it becomes due” or bring one action for the whole amount “when all the installments have matured”), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Although Tenant refers to the award for Landlord as “future” rent, in actuality, it is the rent she already owed but hadn't paid.²

[10] Because Tenant has failed to show clear error in the small-claims court's judgment, we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   There are two concerns with the amount of the judgment. First, it is unclear from the record how the court arrived at $3,175. As noted above, the amount of three months’ rent is $3,825. Even if the court accepted Landlord's claim that Tenant was “$50 short” from a prior month, a $3,875 balance of unpaid rent minus the $500 security deposit would result in a judgment of $3,375, not $3,175. Additionally, the rental agreement provides that “[i]f [Tenant] does not fulfill the one year agreement, [Tenant] agrees to forfeit the entire deposit.” But despite this provision and the court's finding that Tenant terminated the lease early without good cause, the court deducted the security deposit from the amount Tenant owed.That said, as explained below, Tenant didn't provide a transcript of the small-claims proceedings, so we don't know what was argued or requested at trial. And notably, Landlord doesn't challenge the amount of the judgment—in fact, she states that the court “properly awarded damages consisting of three months of rent ․ minus the security deposit.” Appellee's Br. p. 3. Thus, we will not disturb the court's judgment.

2.   In her reply brief, Tenant also claims that Landlord “presented no evidence of advertising, showings, or attempts to mitigate during the claimed period.” Appellant's Reply Br. p. 2. But Tenant didn't make this argument in her opening brief, so it is waived. See Curtis v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1143, 1148 (Ind. 2011) (citing Appellate Rule 46(C) and explaining that “parties may not raise an issue ․ for the first time in a reply brief”). And again, because Tenant didn't provide a transcript, we have no way of knowing what evidence Landlord presented (or didn't present) at trial.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.