Dhiren N. Shah, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Barbara Harrison, Appellee-Defendant (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In March of 2024, Dhiren Shah initiated a small-claims court action against Barbara Harrison, in her position as president of the Eastern Park Homeowner's Association (“the HOA”) in Highland, alleging that the HOA had discriminated against him. Following a hearing, the small-claims court denied Shah's claim. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 13, 2024, Shah initiated an action in the small-claims court, alleging that the HOA had discriminated against him by requiring him to resolve an issue with his home's mailbox when the HOA had apparently not required the home's prior owner to resolve the alleged issue. Shah sought damages in the amount of $500.00. Following a hearing, the small-claims court found that Shah had failed to meet his burden of proof and denied Shah's claim.

Discussion and Decision

[3] Judgments rendered by a small claims court are “subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes.” Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A). The Indiana trial rules apply to small claims proceedings to the extent that they do not conflict with the small claims court rules. Summit Account & Comput. Serv. v. Hogge, 608 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993). Pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A), the findings or judgments rendered by a small claims court are upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. Because small claims courts were designed to dispense justice efficiently by applying substantive law in an informal setting, this deferential standard of review is particularly appropriate. Berryhill v. Parkview Hosp., 962 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). We consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. Id. However, we still review issues of substantive law de novo. Id. The burdens of proof are the same in a small claims suit as they would have been if suit had been filed in a trial court of general jurisdiction. Martin v. Ramos, 120 N.E.3d 244, 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Josh's Lawn & Snow, LLC, 130 N.E.3d 1191, 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “In determining whether a judgment is clearly erroneous, [we do] not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses but consider[ ] only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence.” City of Dunkirk Water & Sewage Dep't v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115, 116 (Ind. 1995). Furthermore, “[i]t is incumbent upon the party who bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is entitled to the recovery sought.” Berryhill, 962 N.E.2d at 689 (internal quotation omitted). “We will reverse a judgment only if the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial court reached the opposite conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

[4] Shah has not filed a transcript of the small-claims court proceedings. In addition, Shah has failed to support his claims with cogent argument or references to citations in the record or even one relevant supporting authority. Shah's failure to provide us with the transcript of the proceedings below, cogent argument in support of his claims, or reference to relevant supporting authorities has significantly hampered our review. Generally, “[a] party waives an issue where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the record.” Davis v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1102, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied; see also Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring that contentions in an appellant's brief be supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authorities, statutes, and the appendix or parts of the record on appeal). Given the lack of a transcript and citations to the record, Shah has waived both his claim of error relating to alleged inattentiveness by the small-claims court during the evidentiary hearing and that the small-claims court erred in denying his claim.

[5] However, despite the deficiencies of the record before us on appeal, we are able to reach the merits of Shah's assertion that an alleged settlement offer by the HOA was proof of the HOA's guilt or wrongdoing. We have previously concluded that unsuccessful settlement negotiations are not admissible as an admission of guilt and cannot be used to prove liability or damages. Bezy v. Loftus, 581 N.E.2d 965, 968 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). Thus, even assuming that the HOA had tendered a settlement offer prior to the evidentiary hearing, such settlement offer does not prove guilt on behalf of the HOA.¹

[6] The judgment of the small-claims court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Shah also claims that, at some point, counsel for the HOA told him that “you are going to lose the case[,]” which Shah argues “gives an impression that the attorney knew the result of the case a priori.” Appellant's Br. p. 12 (underlining omitted). Even assuming that counsel made this statement to Shah, the comment does not give the impression claimed by Shah and reflects nothing more than counsel's belief that Shah's claim that the HOA had discriminated against him was meritless.

Bradford, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Kenworthy concur. Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.