BARRON v. ROYAL RENTALS LLC (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Brandon Michael Barron, pro se, appeals the trial court's denial of his Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. Barron raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the court erred when it denied his motion. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 1

[2] Barron was the president of Logansport Brewing Company, LLC (“Logansport Brewing”). On December 7, 2018, Royal Rentals, LLC (“Royal Rentals”) entered into two commercial lease agreements. The first lease was for a property located at 27 South 3rd Street in Logansport and was between Royal Rentals as the landlord and Logansport Brewing and Barron “Individually and Corporately” as the tenant. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 5. Pursuant to that lease, Logansport Brewing and Barron agreed to lease the property from Royal Rentals beginning on January 1, 2019, in exchange for payment of $3,000 per month in rent. The lease also provided that it “shall be personally guaranteed by signatory individually regardless of whether Lease is executed in the name of a corporation or as an individual.” Id. at 14.

[3] The second lease was for a property located at 29 South 3rd Street in Logansport and was between Royal Rentals as landlord and Barron “Individually and Corporately” as tenant. Id. at 21. Pursuant to that lease, Royal Rentals leased office space in exchange for $650 per month in rent. That lease also provided that it “shall be personally guaranteed by signatory individually regardless of whether Lease is executed in the name of a corporation or an individual.” Id. at 30.

[4] On September 11, Royal Rentals filed a complaint against Logansport Brewing and Barron and alleged that it had received the required rental payments for February but that “no other full payments have been received.” Id. at 3. On January 7, 2020, the trial court held a hearing at which Barron appeared pro se.

[5] On January 10, the court entered an agreed judgment order and granted a judgment in favor of Royal Rentals and “against the Defendants, Logansport Brewing Company, LLC and Brandon Michael Barron” in the amount of $20,500 plus attorney's fees. Id. at 52. Thereafter, on March 11, 2025, Royal Rentals filed a copy of the agreed judgment order with the Howard County clerk's office.² On April 21, Barron filed a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, which motion the court denied on May 1 without a hearing.³ This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Barron contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for relief from judgment. Generally, a grant or denial of equitable relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60 is within the discretion of the trial court and is reviewed for an abuse of that discretion. Baker v. Baker, 50 N.E.3d 401, 403 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “However, if a trial court's ruling is strictly based upon a paper record, we will review the ruling de novo because we are in as good a position as the trial court to determine the force and effect of the evidence.” Jahangirizadeh v. Pazouki, 27 N.E.3d 1178, 1181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing In re Adoption of C.B.M., 992 N.E.2d 687, 691 (Ind. 2013)). The trial court here ruled solely upo a paper record, and so our review is de novo.

[7] According to Barron, he filed his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(8),⁴ which provides for relief from judgment for “any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment[.]” “In order to prevail under Rule 60(B)(8), the movant must 1) allege sufficient grounds showing exceptional circumstances justify relief from the operation of the judgment other than those set forth in Rule 60(B)(1)-(4), 2) allege a meritorious defense, and 3) file the motion within a reasonable time.” Dalton Corp. v. Myers, 65 N.E.3d 1142, 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

[8] We first note that Royal Rentals contends that Barron's motion more accurately falls under Trial Rule 60(B)(1), which provides relief from judgment for mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect and which is subject to a one-year time limitation for filing the motion. However, for the purposes of this appeal, we need not decide whether Royal Rentals is correct.

[9] Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Barron's motion was appropriately filed under subsection (8), he cannot prevail because he has not alleged a meritorious defense. Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)’s requirement for a meritorious defense

merely requires a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense, that is, a showing that will prevail until contradicted and overcome by other evidence. The movant need only present evidence that, if credited, demonstrates that a different result would be reached if the case were retried on the merits and that it is unjust to allow the judgment to stand.

Outback Steakhouse of Fla., Inc. v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65, 73-74 (Ind. 2006) (quotation marks omitted, emphasis removed).

[10] The crux of Barron's argument on appeal is that the court should have granted his motion for relief from judgment because “the objective evidence shows that [he] intended to bind only the company,” and that he “did not intend to assume personal liability.” Appellant's Br. at 13. As such, he maintains that the court improperly entered a judgment against him personally and that it should have entered judgment only against Logansport Brewing.

[11] However, both leases identified Logansport Brewing and Barron “Individually and Corporately” as tenants. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 5, 21. Further, and importantly, both leases provided that they “shall be personally guaranteed by signatory individually regardless of whether Lease is executed in the name of a corporation or an individual.” Id. at 14, 30. Stated differently, despite Barron's arguments to the contrary, he signed contracts that contained provisions to hold himself personally liable for the rental payments. Based on the plain language of the contracts he signed, Barron has not met his burden to demonstrate that a different result would be reached if the case were retried on the merits.

[12] Still, Barron contends that the court erred when it failed to hold a hearing on his Trial Rule 60(B) motion. Hearings are required under Indiana Trial Rule 60(D), except where the motion lacks “pertinent” evidence to support it. Integrated Home Techs., Inc. v. Draper, 724 N.E.2d 641, 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Here, Barron has not provided us with a copy of his motion, so we are unable to discern if he presented any “pertinent” evidence to support his motion. As such, Barron has not met his burden on his appeal to demonstrate that the court was required to hold a hearing on his motion.⁵

Conclusion

[13] The trial court did not err when it denied Barron's motion for relief from judgment. Nor did the court err when it ruled on Barron's motion without a hearing. We therefore affirm the trial court's order.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   There is nothing in the record to demonstrate why Royal Rentals filed the judgment in Howard County. But the parties agree in their briefs that it had to do with real estate that Barron owns in that county.

3.   Barron has not provided a copy of that motion in his record on appeal.

4.   As we do not have a copy of Barron's motion, we are unable to confirm the substance of that motion.

5.   Barron also contends that “Indiana Trial Rule 51(A) requires that judgments be clearly written and enforceable; Trial Rule 52(A) provides that findings of fact are essential where issues of legal capacity, liability, and equitable relief are in dispute. The trial court complied with neither.” Appellant's Br. at 60. However, Trial Rule 51(A) addresses preliminary jury instructions and is not applicable here. And while Trial Rule 52(A) addresses findings by the court, Barron has not made any argument to explain how the court failed to comply with that rule. He has therefore waived any purported argument under that rule.

Bailey, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.