BROWNING v. HIGH TECH AUTO REPAIR (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Shapri Browning (“Browning”) appeals pro se the small claims court's judgment in favor of High Tech Auto Repair (“High Tech Auto”). Browning argues that the small claims court erred when it ruled in favor of High Tech Auto. Concluding that the small claims court did not err, we affirm the small claims court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the small claims court erred when it ruled in favor of High Tech Auto.

Facts

[3] In February 2024, Browning took her 2001 Chevy Monte Carlo (“the car”) to High Tech Auto to repair an oil leak. Cardenas (“Cardenas”) operated High Tech Auto. During the repair process, Cardenas informed Browning that there was a problem with the car's engine. During this time, either Browning or Cardenas purchased parts to repair the car. Nearly a month later, in March 2024, Browning paid High Tech Auto $800 for the repair.

[4] In August 2024, Browning filed a notice of claim against High Tech Auto. In her notice of claim, Browning sought $2,500 in damages from High Tech Auto. Browning alleged that she had taken her car to High Tech Auto for an oil leak and that High Tech Auto had told her that she needed a new engine and then had kept her car for one month. She also alleged that, a few days after High Tech Auto had repaired and returned her car, the car did not run.

[5] In October 2024, the small claims court held a bench trial. During the bench trial, Browning testified that she had communicated with Cardenas through text messages and phone calls. Browning further testified that she had initially been quoted $250 for the oil leak repair and later had been informed of additional needed repairs. Browning testified that she had gotten her car back from High Tech Auto in March 2024, that the oil leak had been repaired, and that she had been driving the car since March 2024. Browning offered into evidence the $800 receipt that she had paid when she had collected the car in March 2024.

[6] Browning told the small claims court that she was asking for $2,500 for damages, emotional distress, and not having her car for one month. When the small claims court asked Browning if that total was for work that High Tech Auto either did not do or did not do correctly, Browning responded that she did not know what High Tech Auto had done. Browning entered into evidence photographs of the car and several text messages exchanged during the repair process. Some of the text messages were between Browning and Cardenas, and other text messages were between Browning and her friend.

[7] Browning also testified that after she had gotten her car back from High Tech Auto, she had noticed that there was damage to its body and that the coolant light had turned on when she drove it. Browning also offered into evidence an estimate for proposed repairs for the alleged body damage to the car. In addition, Browning testified that she had not taken the car to anyone else for repairs since March 2024.

[8] Cardenas testified that he had repaired the car's oil leak and engine. When the small claims court asked Cardenas if he had done all of the work that he had billed Browning for, Cardenas affirmatively responded that he had done so. When the small claims court asked Cardenas if he had repaired any issues with the car that he had caused, he confirmed that he had. Finally, when the small claims court asked Cardenas if he had given Browning her car “in the condition that [Cardenas] felt like was the best condition” given the work that he had done on it, Cardenas responded, “[y]eah[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 19).

[9] In December 2024, the small claims court issued its order, which provided, in relevant part, as follows:

6. At the [b]ench [t]rial, [Browning] testified that the [car] is currently in her possession. [Browning] contends that [High Tech Auto] did something improper to [the car], as it did not need an engine prior to taking the [car] in for minor repairs related to the oil leak. [Browning] also testified that the [car] sustained some paint and body damage while in [High Tech Auto's] care.

7. [ ]Cardenas testified that he attempted to find and fix the leak and performed all work and other repairs in a workmanlike manner. [ ]Cardenas testified that the engine needed to be replaced and he did not bill [Browning] for all of the work he performed.

8. While the repairs were not performed as quickly as [Browning] anticipated, no evidence before the Court suggests any delays in performing the [car] repairs were intentional or negligent. In addition, while [Browning] did not expect [that] her [car] needed a new engine when she took it in for repairs related to the oil leak in February of 2024, [Browning] paid for these repairs and has not demonstrated to the Court that the repairs were not necessary.

9. As to the damage [Browning] contends occurred in [High Tech Auto's] care, [Browning] presented an estimate for repairs. However, [Browning] failed to demonstrate the fair market value of the [car] and the reasonable relationship between this value and the estimated cost of repair.

10. Based upon the evidence, the Court finds [Browning] failed to demonstrate that [High Tech Auto] improperly worked on the [car], delayed work on the [car], or that [High Tech Auto] otherwise acted negligently.

11. For these reasons, the Court finds [Browning] failed to meet her burden to prove that [High Tech Auto] committed a misconduct that constitutes a cause of action and that [Browning] suffered measurable damages as a result of the same.

(App. Vol. 2 at 6-7). Ultimately, the small claims court entered judgment in favor of High Tech Auto and against Browning.

[10] Browning now appeals.

Decision

[11] At the outset, we note that Browning has chosen to proceed pro se. It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Thus, pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so. Id. We will not become an advocate for a party, nor will we address arguments which are either inappropriate, too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood. Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[12] We also note that High Tech Auto did not file an Appellees’ brief. When an appellee fails to submit an appellate brief, “we will reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant's brief presents a case of prima facie error.” Front Row Motors, LLC v. Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753, 758 (Ind. 2014) (cleaned up). “Prima facie error in this context is defined as, at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. (cleaned up).

[13] Browning argues that the small claims court erred when it entered judgment in favor of High Tech Auto. We disagree.

[14] Judgments in small claims actions are “ ‘subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes. ’ ” Hetty Incorporated v. Weems, 237 N.E.3d 701, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A)), reh'g denied. “We review facts from a bench trial under the clearly erroneous standard.” Hetty, 237 N.E.3d at 704 (cleaned up). “The small claims court is the sole judge of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses, and on appeal we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses.” Heartland Crossing Found., Inc. v. Dotlich, 976 N.E.2d 760, 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “This deferential standard of review is particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are designed to speedily dispense justice by applying substantive law between the parties in an informal setting.” Berryhill v. Parkview Hosp., 962 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Although the method of proof may be informal, the party bearing the burden of proof must demonstrate that she is entitled to the recovery sought. Spainhower v. Smart & Kessler, LLC, 176 N.E.3d 258, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

[15] Browning argues that the small claims court erred when it entered judgment in favor of High Tech Auto and against her on her claims of negligence and emotional distress. However, Browning does not support her contentions with any cogent argument. Indeed, Browning's entire appellate brief does not cite to a single case or authority supporting her contention. Instead, Browning's brief contains no citations to cases, two complete citations to Indiana statutes, and two partial citations to Indiana statutes. Browning does not articulate how any of these citations support her contention that the small claims court erred. Thus, Browning has waived her arguments on appeal. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).¹

[16] Waiver notwithstanding, our review of the record reveals that the small claims court did not clearly err when it entered judgment in favor of High Tech Auto and against Browning. In this small claims case, Browning alleged that High Tech Auto had been negligent in its repair of her car and had damaged the car's body. To prevail on her claim of negligence, Browning was required to prove the following: (1) High Tech Auto owed a duty to Browning; (2) High Tech Auto breached that duty by failing to meet the applicable standard of care; and (3) that Browning suffered damages caused by High Tech Auto's breach of duty. Goodwin v. Yeakle's Sports Bar and Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384, 386 (Ind. 2016). Concerning Browning's claim that her car was damaged while in High Tech Auto's possession, she needed to prove that a bailment existed and that High Tech Auto failed to properly safeguard her car when it allegedly returned it with damage. Erie Ins. Exchange v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2025 WL 1792787, *5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).

[17] Here, Browning and Cardenas both testified regarding Browning's claims. The small claims court, after reviewing the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, found that Browning had failed to meet her evidentiary burden. Our review of the record does not yield a different conclusion than that of the small claims court. Browning, when asked by the small claims court to explain her request for $2,500 in damages, could not articulate to the small claims court how she had reached that amount and could not say with certainty what work High Tech Auto had done on the car. Further, Cardenas testified that he had repaired the car's oil leak and engine, had repaired any damage that he had caused, and had done all of the work that he had billed to Browning. Given the evidence before us and our deferential standard of review, we hold that the small claims court did not err when it entered judgment in favor of High Tech Auto and against Browning. Accordingly, we affirm the small claims court's judgment.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Browning's brief also does not set forth a standard of review for any of her arguments which is in violation of our appellate rules. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b) (providing that “[t]he argument must include for each issue a concise statement of the applicable standard of review”).

Pyle, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and DeBoer, J., concur.