Cause 4Paws Gary, Appellant-Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. Katanya Cannon, Appellee-Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Cause 4Paws Gary, Inc. (“Cause 4Paws”) brought a breach of contract claim in small claims court against Katanya Cannon after Cannon retained possession of a foster dog Cause 4Paws had placed in her care. Cannon counterclaimed under contract and tort theories. The trial court found in Cannon's favor, awarding Cannon the dog and $10,000 in damages, costs, and attorney fees. Cause 4Paws now appeals, raising two issues:

1. Did the trial court err in entering judgment for Cannon on Cause 4Paws’ breach of contract claim and awarding Cannon ownership of the dog?

2. Did the trial court err in awarding Cannon damages for pain and suffering and attorney fees?

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Michelle Robinson works for Clean Paws Mobile Grooming Salon and is the founder and CEO of Cause 4Paws, a nonprofit organization offering “pet supportive services for low income residents in Lake County,” including assistance with food, medical care, and rehoming. Tr. Vol. 1 at 7. When a pet needs to be rehomed, Cause 4Paws advertises the pet on social media and attempts to find a foster placement. A person accepting a foster pet placement must sign the organization's foster home contract, which defines a foster home as “a temporary shelter for at risk animals” which may be “short or long term, depending on the circumstances of each case.” Ex. Vol. 1 at 3. The foster care provider agrees to supply a temporary home and care for a foster animal, under certain conditions and restrictions related to the pet's health and safety. In exchange, Cause 4Paws reimburses foster care providers for “medical, training or other previously approved expenses that may occur during the foster period.” Id. As to ownership and adoption, the foster care agreement provides:

Ownership: The Foster Care Provider may not give, lease, sell or otherwise transfer custody of the rescue animal to anyone while it is under the Foster Care Provider Contract. Cause 4Paws Gary, INC will retain ownership of all foster dogs/cats and will make the final decisions (with the input of the Foster Care Provider) regarding adoption or euthanization [sic]. The Foster Care Provider also agrees that Cause 4Paws Gary, INC may, as it deems necessary, make visits to the Foster Care Provider to check on the foster animal status. Should Cause 4Paws Gary, INC decide that the foster animal requires any behavioral training or medical attention, the Foster Care Provider agrees to abide by Cause 4Paws Gary, INC.’s decision.

Adoption: Should the Foster Care Provider decide to adopt the animal in their care, the Foster Care Provider will be required to request in writing their intention to adopt the foster animal. Upon receipt, the notice will be reviewed and processed by Cause 4Paws Gary, INC. A reimbursement fee for vaccinations, sterilization and identification may apply.

Id. at 4. A foster care provider does not pay a fee to foster an animal.

[4] In August 2021, Cannon contacted Robinson and expressed an interest in a five-year-old male Shih Tzu named Gizmo Knight Rider that Cause 4Paws was trying to rehome. After some back and forth, Robinson sent Cannon a foster care agreement. In an email to Cannon on September 8, Robinson wrote: “[Gizmo] will go in for his shots and will be freshly groomed before you take him for fostering. [After] a week if everything is going well, the adoption transfer fee will [be] $150.00[.] We will transfer his microchip to your name and address.” Id. at 53. Cannon attempted to send back the signed contract. In a follow-up email on September 17, Robinson wrote, “I never received the contract. The adoption fee is $150.00. You can make the check payable to Cause 4Paws Gary. We will hold it for 2 weeks during the adoption period. If everything works out OK then we will cash the check and transfer his microchip to your address and name.” Id. at 56. Cannon signed the foster home agreement, and around September 20, Robinson delivered Gizmo to Cannon. Cannon also paid the $150 adoption fee, which Cause 4Paws was “holding until the adoption process was complete.” Tr. Vol. 1 at 19.¹

[5] Initially the placement seemed to go well. On September 26, Cannon sent Robinson a text message asking for the name of Gizmo's vet as she noticed he had an irritated eye. Robinson responded that Gizmo had “leaky eyes” and provided the vet's name. Ex. Vol. 1 at 9. Cannon sent Robinson photos of the dog, and the parties exchanged friendly messages about his habits. The parties also communicated about grooming appointments through Robinson's mobile grooming business, which is not affiliated with Cause 4Paws.

[6] But soon the relationship between Robinson and Cannon soured. On October 21, Robinson went to Cannon's home to see Gizmo. When Cannon did not open the door, Robinson called the Gary Police Department, and the responding officer contacted animal control. Neither law enforcement nor the animal control officer successfully contacted Cannon. Cause 4Paws then emailed Cannon informing her “our committee has rejected your request to adopt Gizmo Knight Rider due to your refusal to allow a home visit as per the contract” and requesting the return of Gizmo in exchange for the $150 deposit. Id. at 60. Cause 4Paws also made social media posts accusing Cannon of theft, stating Gizmo was “in need of medical care and may be in danger,” publishing Cannon's photo and address, and requesting help in facilitating Gizmo's return. Id. at 30. Based on Robinson's report, Cannon was charged with Level 6 felony theft in April 2022 under cause number 45G01-2204-F6-634.²

[7] On August 28, 2023, Cause 4Paws sued Cannon in small claims court alleging breach of contract by failing to permit Cause 4Paws to check on Gizmo; it requested Gizmo's return and $3,927 in damages, representing the value of the dog, court costs, and attorney fees. Cannon counterclaimed, alleging Cause 4Paws breached its contract “by taking funds for property” and also caused “missed income opportunity [with] false charges.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 8. She requested damages of $10,000 related to lost wages and pain and suffering.

[8] The trial court held a bench trial on March 21, 2024, at which Robinson appeared by counsel and Cannon appeared pro se. Robinson testified she knew Cannon was interested in adopting Gizmo, but “wanted to make sure that it was a good fit first.” Tr. Vol. 1 at 14. According to Robinson, Cause 4Paws had trouble scheduling visits to Cannon's home and Cannon was preventing Robinson from taking Gizmo to vet appointments. Robinson said the value of the dog was $1,799, but in any case, Cause 4Paws wanted Gizmo back.

[9] In response, Cannon testified things went south after she declined to engage Robinson to provide grooming services for Gizmo. By Cannon's account, Robinson was going to bring the microchip and adoption papers to Cannon during an upcoming grooming appointment and introduced text messages to that effect.³ But when Cannon cancelled the appointment, Robinson retaliated by attempting to remove Gizmo from her care. Cannon acknowledged she signed the foster care agreement. But she believed she was approved to adopt Gizmo when she paid the adoption fee of $150 on September 20 and more than two weeks passed without incident. She testified she lost wages due to her arrest for theft, incurred attorney fees defending herself in the theft case, suffered anxiety and stress from the ongoing legal proceedings, and incurred costs related to Gizmo's care.

[10] On April 18, 2024, the trial court entered judgment for Cannon on Cause 4Paws’ claim and Cannon's counterclaim. In pertinent part, the trial court found:

[T]he relationship between Ms. Robinson of Cause 4Paws and Ms. Cannon soured after a disagreement about grooming services for the dog. The foster arrangement began in September, 2021, and things went very well between the parties until October 17, 2021, when they had a dispute about a grooming appointment. Ms. Robinson personally provided grooming services and Ms. Cannon's utilization of those services during the foster period was not required by the foster contract (See plaintiff's Exhibit A).

Immediately thereafter, Ms. Robinson thwarted Ms. Cannon's efforts to complete the adoption, made false statements about her on social media and requested the filing of formal criminal charges against Ms. Cannon․ Ms. Robinson also convened a meeting of the Board of Directors for Cause 4Paws and elicited a vote in favor of cancelling Ms. Cannon's foster contract. She then demanded that Ms. Cannon return the dog who had resided with Ms. Cannon and her family for approximately four (4) weeks.

Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 2. The trial court found “Robinson's allegations to this Court are wholly unfounded.” Id. It also found Robinson “falsely and maliciously” posted on social media about Cannon and found “Robinson's actions to be personal, vindictive and reckless.” Id. at 3. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment for Cannon on Cause 4Paws’ breach of contract claim and ordered Cause 4Paws to transfer ownership of Gizmo and his microchip to Cannon. On Cannon's counterclaim, the trial court awarded her $2,016.70 in lost wages, $2,000 in attorney fees “for the attorney she had to hire to defend her in the felony theft case,” and $5,983.30 for pain and suffering because Robinson's conduct was “so egregious,” for a total judgment of $10,000. Id.

Standard of Review

[11] We first note Cannon has not filed an appellate brief. When an appellee has not filed a brief, “we need not undertake the burden of developing an argument on the appellee's behalf.” Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006). “[W]e will reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant's brief presents a case of prima facie error.” Id. Prima facie error is error “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. (citation omitted). If an appellant is unable to meet this burden, we will affirm.

[12] Judgments in small claims actions are “subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes.” Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A). We will not set aside the factual findings or judgment entered in a bench trial unless clearly erroneous. Ind. Trial Rule 52(A); Trinity Homes, 848 N.E.2d at 1067. In determining whether a judgment is clearly erroneous, we do not reweigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. City of Dunkirk Water & Sewage Dep't v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115, 116 (Ind. 1995). We consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. Id. This “deferential standard of review is particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are ‘informal, with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law.’ ” Id. (quoting S.C.R. 8(A)). We review questions of law de novo, just as we do in appeals from a court of general jurisdiction. Trinity Homes, 848 N.E.2d at 1068.

The trial court did not err by awarding Cannon the dog.

[13] The organization first argues the trial court erred by entering judgment for Cannon on Cause 4Paws’ breach of contract claim and awarding Cannon the dog. The essential elements of a breach of contract claim are the existence of a contract, the defendant's breach thereof, and damages. Berg v. Berg, 170 N.E.3d 224, 231 (Ind. 2021).

[14] There is no dispute Cannon signed Cause 4Paws’ foster home contract, under which Cannon agreed to provide a temporary home and care for Gizmo and Cause 4Paws agreed to reimburse Cannon for certain expenses. Under the agreement, Cause 4Paws retained a discretionary right to “make visits to the Foster Care Provider to check on the foster animal status.” Ex. Vol. 1 at 4. And if Cause 4Paws decided Gizmo needed medical attention, Cannon agreed “to abide by” the organization's decision. Id.

[15] On appeal, Cause 4Paws argues Cannon breached the contract by denying Cause 4Paws “in-home visits of the foster dog” and failing to “make the foster dog available for the agreed to rescheduled vet appointment on October 21.” Appellant's Br. at 7, 9. As evidence of breach, Cause 4Paws points to Robinson's testimony that she was having trouble scheduling time with Cannon to check on Gizmo and Cannon was preventing her from taking Gizmo to the vet to address his irritated eye. But the trial court did not credit Robinson's testimony. As the trial court saw it, Cannon was not denying Cause 4Paws access to Gizmo, but refusing to engage Robinson's grooming services, which the foster contract did not require. As to Robinson's claim Gizmo was in medical distress in Cannon's care, the trial court noted “Robinson herself had advised Ms. Cannon that the dog was prone to have leaky eyes via text on September 26, 2021.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 3. And it was Cannon who reached out to get Gizmo's vet information to address the problem. When we consider only the evidence supporting the judgment, it shows Cause 4Paws failed to prove Cannon breached the foster agreement's visiting and medical care provisions.

[16] Cause 4Paws also alleges the trial court erred in awarding Cannon possession of Gizmo after the organization denied her adoption application. Cause 4Paws contends the foster agreement is clear and unambiguous “regarding the process of foster care and adoption of a foster animal” and “that Cause 4Paws has the final say before an adoption is complete.” Appellant's Br. at 7, 9.

[17] In interpreting a contract, the goal is to ascertain and give effect to the parties’ intent. Decker v. Star Fin. Grp., Inc., 204 N.E.3d 918, 920 (Ind. 2023). To do that, we start with the contract language. Wohlt v. Wohlt, 245 N.E.3d 611, 616 (Ind. 2024). “If the contract's terms are unambiguous, then they are conclusive of the parties’ intent, and courts give the contract its plain meaning.” Id. The interpretation of a contract is a question of law which we review de novo. Id.

On the other hand, if a contract's terms are ambiguous, inconsistent, or uncertain, its interpretation is no longer a question of law but one of fact. In that case, the trier-of-fact must determine the facts required to construe the contract. And to do that, the factfinder must look outside the contract's four corners to parol (or extrinsic) evidence. A contract is not ambiguous simply because the parties disagree about the proper interpretation of its terms. Instead, for an ambiguity to exist, the contract must be subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.

Id. (citations omitted).

[18] The foster contract is clear and unambiguous on some points. For example, a foster pet is the property of Cause 4Paws during the fostering term. A foster care provider must submit a written request to adopt an animal; on receipt, “the notice will be reviewed and processed by” Cause 4Paws. Ex. Vol. 1 at 4. And Cause 4Paws “will make the final decisions (with the input of the Foster Care Provider) regarding adoption[.]” Id.

[19] But the foster contract is mostly concerned with the parties’ fostering arrangement, not adoption. Other than how adoption is initiated, the foster contract is silent on the adoption process, including how it is finalized. Unlike most contracts, it contains no term or termination provisions. Presumably, though not explicitly, the agreement terminates if an adoption is completed. But the contract does not explain what happens to the foster agreement if the organization denies an adoption request. And there is no integration clause providing the contract embodies the complete agreement between the parties. See I.C.C. Protective Coatings, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 695 N.E.2d 1030, 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (definition of integration clause), trans. denied.

[20] Because the termination and adoption provisions were uncertain—yet central to the parties’ claims—the trial court looked to parol evidence to determine the parties’ intent, including the parties’ testimony and other documentary evidence. The trial court determined Cause 4Paws entered a contract with Cannon “to foster a dog with the intention to ultimately adopt it.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 2. Evidence supporting the judgment shows the foster arrangement began in September 2021, Cause 4Paws collected an adoption fee when delivering Gizmo, and the foster arrangement was to last two weeks at most, at which time Cause 4Paws would transfer ownership of Gizmo to Cannon. During that time, Cause 4Paws did not terminate the foster agreement; in fact, as late as October 15, Robinson wrote to Cannon that she would bring by the adoption paperwork and transfer the chip. But after Cannon declined to engage Robinson's grooming services, Robinson “thwarted” Cannon's efforts to complete the adoption and demanded Gizmo's return. Id. In sum, Cannon showed the foster agreement was to terminate with Gizmo's adoption, Cause 4Paws agreed to transfer ownership to Cannon after two weeks, Cause 4Paws accepted Cannon's adoption fee, and the condition of a two-week waiting period was completed. Because Cannon fulfilled her contractual obligations to adopt the dog, the trial court did not err in awarding Cannon ownership of Gizmo.

The trial court did not err in awarding Cannon attorney fees and damages for pain and suffering because Cannon's claims sounded in both contract and tort.

[21] Cause 4Paws next argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Cannon attorney fees and damages for pain and suffering in a breach of contract action.⁴

[22] The proper measure of damages for breach of contract is the loss suffered because of the breach. Holloway v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 695 N.E.2d 991, 995 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). The damages claimed for breach of contract must be the natural, foreseeable, and proximate consequence of the breach. Hi-Tec Properties, LLC v. Murphy, 14 N.E.3d 767, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. A plaintiff may not be placed in a better position than she would have been had the breach not occurred. Id. “A damage award must be based upon some fairly defined standard, such as cost of repair, market value, established experience, rental value, loss of use, loss of profits, or direct inference from known circumstances.” Id.

[23] Compensation for physical and mental pain and suffering, on the other hand, is a type of damage awarded in tort actions to compensate an injured party fairly and adequately for a loss sustained. Id. at 775; see also Malott v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 798 N.E.2d 924, 926 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (discussing the measure of damages under tort and contract law principles), trans. denied. As to attorney fees, Indiana follows the American Rule, in which parties to a civil action pay their own fees. BioConvergence, LLC v. Menefee, 103 N.E.3d 1141, 1160 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. But under a statutory exception, a trial court may award attorney fees as part of the prevailing party's costs if the court finds a party brought or continued to litigate a frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless claim or defense or litigated the action in bad faith. Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b) (1998).

[24] When Cannon filed her counterclaim using the small claims court's form, she checked the box indicating her claim was for “Note OR Contract;” she also checked the box for “Other” and specified she was seeking “missed income [and] pain [and] suffering.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 8. In further describing her claim, she alleged breach of contract “by taking funds for property. Also, missed income opportunity [with] false charges.” Id. She sought $10,000 in damages. In its order, the trial court did not further specify the legal theory under which Cannon sought recovery or the court entered its judgment. Yet it noted Robinson “falsely and maliciously posted on social media” that Cannon stole Gizmo, Robinson's “version of events to the authorities resulted in Ms. Cannon being criminally charged,” and found Robinson's actions “personal, vindictive and reckless.” Id. at 3. In addition to the award of $2,016.70 in lost wages Cause 4Paws does not challenge on appeal, the trial court awarded Cannon $2,000 in attorney fees incurred defending against the theft case and the trial court found “Robinson's conduct so egregious that it award[ed] Ms. Cannon the sum of $5,983.30 for pain and suffering.” Id.

[25] To state a claim for relief (including a counterclaim), a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and “a demand for relief to which the pleader deems entitled.” T.R. 8(A). The rule does not require the pleader to delineate a specific legal theory. Noblesville Redev. Comm'n v. Noblesville Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 674 N.E.2d 558, 563 (Ind. 1996). “[N]otice pleading merely requires pleading the operative facts so as to place the defendant on notice as to the evidence to be presented at trial.” Id. (quotation omitted). A complaint sufficiently pleads a claim if the opposing party has been adequately notified of the claim to be able to defend against it; that is, a complaint's allegations are sufficient if they put a reasonable person on notice as to why the plaintiff sues. Id.

[26] Considering the notice pleading standard and informality of small claims proceedings, we believe Cannon pleaded sufficient facts to put Cause 4Paws on notice she sought to recover under both breach of contract and tort theories. Cannon alleged Cause 4Paws, by Robinson, “breached her contract,” and also alleged damages arising from Robinson pursuing “false charges” against her. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 8. Although Cannon did not plead a specific legal theory sounding in tort, she was not required to.⁵ Critically, Cause 4Paws does not appeal the trial court's judgment for Cannon on her counterclaim; it challenges only the award of attorney fees and damages for pain and suffering as not permissible in a contract action. But it is clear from the trial court's order it awarded the pain and suffering damages and attorney fees due to Cause 4Paws’ bad faith use of the judicial system to pursue claims against Cannon. It further found Cannon suffered adverse effects from the stress of the legal proceedings. An injured party may claim compensatory damages suffered from an abuse of process, see Kalwitz v. Kalwitz, 934 N.E.2d 741, 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), and attorney fees are appropriate where a party litigates in bad faith, see I.C. § 34-52-1-1. Because the evidence presented supports the trial court's findings, we will not disturb the trial court's imposition of attorney fees and damages for tortious conduct and bad faith litigation.

Conclusion

[27] The trial court did not err in awarding Cannon ownership of the dog and certain damages and costs.

[28] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At some point, Robinson also provided Cannon a letter about the “Foster 2 Forever” adoption program, which states, in part:Should you decide to make your foster pet a permanent part of your family, we will begin the transfer to your home. We require that you sign a Foster Home Agreement with our organization. We take care of the rest! After 90 days should you decide that we have a good fit, we begin the adoption proceedings! If for some unforeseen reason the pet is not a good fit for your home, we will find a new foster home for that pet within 30 days.We will send an invoice for the adoption fee which is typically the cost that we extended for spay/neuter/vaccinations and microchipping, and transfer ownership to you.Ex Vol. 1 at 6. At trial, Cause 4Paws introduced this letter as the fourth page of Exhibit A, the foster care agreement. The letter appears after the contract's signature page, is not referenced in the agreement, and is not signed by either party. It is unclear if the letter is a separate exhibit or addendum to the contract. But in any case, Cause 4Paws does not rely on the letter's language as the basis of its breach of contract claim.

2.   The charge was dismissed in 2024 after Cannon completed a pre-trial diversion program.

3.   On October 15, Robinson wrote, “if you complete the booking form I can squeeze him in next week so that we can complete his adoption paperwork and chip transfer.” Ex. Vol. 1 at 10.

4.   Cause 4Paws does not challenge the trial court's judgment on Cannon's counterclaim or its award of $2,016.70 in lost wages.

5.   When an appellee has not filed a brief, “we need not undertake the burden of developing an argument on the appellee's behalf.” Trinity Homes, 848 N.E.2d at 1068. But we observe the facts of this case may support various claims sounding in tort law, such as abuse of process, conversion, or defamation, among others.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Brown concur. Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.