MASTER MOVERS LLC v. FORMYDUVAL (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Master Movers, LLC, appeals the small claims court's judgment for Sibyl ¹ and Ron Formyduval on their claim for damages. We affirm the court's finding of liability in the Formyduvals’ favor, but we reverse and remand for recalculation of their damages.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The relevant facts most favorable to the judgment are that in June 2021, the Formyduvals sought to move from their residence in Fishers to a new residence in Carmel. They needed to vacate their Fishers residence and store their property for approximately ten days before it could be moved into their Carmel residence. The Formyduvals contacted Master Movers, which submitted a non-binding estimate form. Based on the estimate, the Formyduvals agreed to hire Master Movers to pack and move their property from their Fishers residence to a warehouse to their Carmel residence.

[3] When a crew of Master Movers’ employees arrived at the Fishers residence to pack the property on June 28, they stated that they would not do any work until they received a tip.² The Formyduvals paid them $360 in cash, and the crew packed the property. On June 29, a different crew arrived to load the property onto a truck and take it to the warehouse. This crew also demanded a tip before they would do any work. The Formyduvals paid them $240 in cash, and the crew loaded the property onto a truck and took it to a warehouse.

[4] When Master Movers’ employees delivered the property to the Carmel residence on July 9, the Formyduvals noticed that numerous items were damaged. Not including the $600 in tips, Master Movers charged the Formyduvals $8,231.93, which they paid in full. In September, the Formyduvals submitted a four-page claim form to Master Movers listing the items of damaged property and the estimated repair cost for each item. After they submitted the form, they found that additional items had been damaged.

[5] In June 2023, the Formyduvals filed a notice of claim against Master Movers and requested $10,000 in damages.³ In June 2024, the small claims court held an evidentiary hearing, at which both parties presented testimony and exhibits, including the claim form and photos of damaged items. The Formyduvals testified to the foregoing facts, and Sibyl estimated that they had sustained $10,000 to $15,000 in “damages from the move[.]” Tr. at 20. In its judgment, the court found in favor of the Formyduvals. The court further found that Master Movers had damaged 46.4 percent of the items shipped, multiplied that figure by $8,231.93, and added the $600 in tips, for a total award of $4,419.62. Master Movers now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] “Small claims actions involve informal trials with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law.” Nick's Packing Servs., Inc. v. Chaney, 181 N.E.3d 1025, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). Small claims judgments are “subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes.” Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A)). Upon review of claims tried by the bench without a jury, we shall not set aside the judgment “unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). “We define the clearly erroneous standard based on whether the party is appealing a negative or an adverse judgment.” Garling v. Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res., 766 N.E.2d 409, 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. “[A]n adverse judgment is one entered against a party defending on a given question.” Id. Thus, in reviewing the adverse judgment against Master Movers, “we will look to the evidence most favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If there was substantial evidence of probative value, the judgment of the trial court will not be overturned.” Watson v. Sears, 766 N.E.2d 784, 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting In re Paternity of Tompkins, 542 N.E.2d 1009, 1013 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)).

[7] Master Movers argues that the Formyduvals’ damages were limited by contract, based on a “BILL OF LADING/CONTRACT” dated June 29, 2021, which Master Movers offered into evidence and contains the following provision:

VALUATION COVERAGE ․

Customer/Shipper is required to declare in writing the released value of the property. The agreed or declared value of the property is hereby specifically stated by the Customer (shipper) and confirmed by their signature hereon to be NOT exceeding 60 cents per pound per article unless specifically accepted [sic]. The customer/shipper is hereby declares [sic] valuation in excess of the above limits on the following articles. By signing this document, the customer understands that he or she has a deductible of $250 per article.

Ex. Vol. at 102 (Defendant's Ex. B).⁴ Ron's purported signature appears directly below this provision.

[8] Master Movers asserts that, pursuant to this provision, Ron “stipulated the amount of loss that he would be entitled to in case any items were lost or damaged[,]” i.e., “.60 cents [sic] per pound[.]” Appellant's Br. at 6. Master Movers goes on to state, “The total weight of the damaged items is 1397 pounds. Therefore, as stipulated by the contract freely entered by both parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to $588.20[.]” Id. According to Master Movers,

The Trial Court seems to have not considered at all the agreement between the parties in reaching its decision․ [T]he contract clearly stipulated what damages the [Formyduvals] would be entitled to receive in case of lost or damaged property. But even if the validity of the agreement is ignored, the decision of the trial court cannot be sustained due to the lack of evidence that the [Formyduvals] failed to present at trial regarding the value of each individual item that was allegedly damaged during shipment.

Id.⁵

[9] In response, the Formyduvals correctly observe that “[t]he existence of a contract is a question of law” and that “[t]he basic requirements for a contract include offer, acceptance, consideration, and a meeting of the minds of the contracting parties.” Appellees’ Br. at 9 (quoting Batchelor v. Batchelor, 853 N.E.2d 162, 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). Moreover, they point out that “[a] mutual assent or a meeting of minds on all essential elements or terms must exist in order to form a binding contract[,]” id. at 9-10 (quoting DiMizio v. Romo, 756 N.E.2d 1018, 1022 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied), and that “[t]he failure to demonstrate agreement on essential terms of a purported contract negates mutual assent and hence there is no contract.” Id. at 10 (quoting Wallem v. CLS Indus., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 880, 883 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)).

[10] The Formyduvals note that, at trial, they offered into evidence an identically worded “BILL OF LADING/CONTRACT” dated July 9, 2021, that contains the same “VALUATION COVERAGE” provision with no accompanying signature. Ex. Vol. at 11 (Plaintiffs’ Ex. 2). This bill of lading also indicates, via Sibyl's handwritten circle and signature, that property was damaged during the move. Id. Regarding the other bill of lading, the Formyduvals note that Ron disputed the authenticity of at least one of his signatures on that document and testified that a Master Movers employee “got the paper in front of [him] and [said] sign, sign[,] sign.” Tr. at 29. This conduct is indicative of duress, which is a basis for voiding a contract. Reitenour v. M/I Homes of Ind., L.P., 176 N.E.3d 505, 511 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).

[11] Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to infer that the small claims court implicitly concluded that there was no mutual assent or a meeting of the minds on the essential element of the compensation to which the Formyduvals would be entitled for property damaged by Master Movers, and thus the Formyduvals’ damages are not limited by contract. We cannot say that this conclusion is clearly erroneous, and we affirm the court's finding of liability in favor of the Formyduvals. Nevertheless, on its face, the court's unorthodox method of calculating their damages does not comport with Indiana's rules of substantive law, and thus the judgment is clearly erroneous in this respect. Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for recalculation of those damages.

[12] This Court has stated that in a situation where an item of personal property is destroyed, the general rule is that the plaintiff's compensatory damages “shall be the fair market value of the property at the time of loss.” Bokori v. Martinoski, 70 N.E.3d 441, 444 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Fair market value is defined as the value a willing seller will accept from a willing buyer for a good.” Id. (quoting Warrick Cnty. v. Waste Mgmt. of Evansville, 732 N.E.2d 1255, 1258 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)). By contrast,

the fundamental measure of damages in a situation where an item of personal property is damaged, but not destroyed, is the reduction in fair market value caused by the negligence of the tort feasor. This reduction in fair market value may be proved in any of three ways, depending on the circumstances. First, it may be proved by evidence of the fair market value before and the fair market value after the causative event. Secondly, it may be proved by evidence of the cost of repair where repair will restore the personal property to its fair market value before the causative event. Third, the reduction in fair market value may be proved by a combination of evidence of the cost of repair and evidence of the fair market value before the causative event and the fair market value after repair, where repair will not restore the item of personal property to its fair market value before the causative event.

Wiese-GMC, Inc. v. Wells, 626 N.E.2d 595, 599 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied.

[13] As mentioned above, the Formyduvals offered into evidence the claim form that they submitted to Master Movers, as well as photos of damaged items and Sibyl's testimony that she and Ron sustained an estimated $10,000 to $15,000 in damages as a result of the move. On remand, the small claims court shall consider the foregoing substantive legal rules and evidence and recalculate the Formyduvals’ damages accordingly, making sure to include the $600 in tips that Master Movers collected from the Formyduvals under duress.⁶

[14] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Sibyl's name is spelled “Sybil” at some points in the record. We have relied on the spelling used in her appellate brief.

2.   At trial, Sibyl testified that she and Ron “were totally caught off guard by this” and “kind of felt like [they] were over the barrel.” Tr. at 9. An undated “Wrap Up” form that Master Movers offered into evidence states, “We would like you to know that it is not obligatory to tip. However, it is a gesture to show your satisfaction with the crew assigned to your move.” Ex. Vol. at 111 (Defendant's Ex. E).

3.   The notice of claim was not included in Master Movers’ appendix. We accessed the document via the Odyssey case management system.

4.   The version of the exhibit that was submitted to this Court is almost entirely illegible. We accessed the exhibits that were submitted to the small claims court via the Odyssey case management system.

5.   In its statement of facts, Master Movers also complains that the Formyduvals “claimed, without corroborative evidence, that they paid $600 for tips to the movers.” Appellant's Br. at 5. Master Movers cites no authority for the proposition that such corroborative evidence was required.

6.   We note that the tips (as well as treble damages, attorney's fees, costs, and miscellaneous expenses) may have been ripe for recovery under the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act. Ind. Code § 34-24-3-1.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.