William M. Frazier, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Brittney L. Flick, Appellee-Defendant (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Brittney Flick left her truck with William Frazier, a mechanic, for collision repairs. In the ten months that the truck was in Frazier's possession, it went from drivable to a state of disrepair. Flick sued in small claims court to repossess her truck, and Frazier countersued for unpaid work associated with the truck. The small claims court denied Frazier's claim, and Frazier now appeals, raising six issues for our review that we revise and restate as the following single issue: Whether the trial court erred in denying Frazier's claim for unpaid fees.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On April 4, 2024, Flick hit a deer while driving her truck, a 2008 GMC Sierra 2500 HD. Later that day, Flick drove the truck to Frazier's mechanic shop and left it with him for repairs. The two had an ongoing professional relationship, as Frazier previously worked on Flick's Pontiac G6 and was currently performing repairs on Flick's Bobcat skid steer loader. Following the accident, Flick received $4,917.18 from her truck's insurance provider. Flick sent the money to Frazier and directed that it be used for the truck repairs. Unbeknownst to Flick, instead of applying the insurance money to truck repairs, Frazier used this money to cover Flick's invoices relating to the Bobcat repairs.

[4] Over the next several months, Frazier made little progress toward repairing the truck. On three separate occasions, Flick requested that Frazier return the vehicle due to her growing frustration with the lack of progress. However, Frazier refused to return it, maintaining that Flick had an outstanding balance on the truck. On December 18, 2024, Flick filed an action in small claims court to regain possession of the truck. Frazier counterclaimed for $4,858.38 in unpaid fees related to “repair work on 2008 2500 GMC Sierra Truck.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 7. At the hearing on January 30, 2025, the small claims court granted Flick's request for repossession and set a hearing on damages, including Frazier's counterclaim.

[5] In February 2025, ten months after Flick initially left the truck with Frazier, Flick regained possession of it. When Flick retrieved the truck, it was in pieces—the front bumper, grill, left front fender, and back tailgate were all detached. Flick had to use a trailer to haul the truck away, as it was undrivable. Additionally, Flick discovered when examining the truck's odometer that the truck had approximately 1,800 more miles on it than it did when she left it with Frazier.

[6] On March 27, the small claims court held a consolidated hearing on damages for Flick's repossession action and Frazier's claim for unpaid mechanic's fees. During the hearing on repossession damages, Flick declined to request compensation, stating that she “was mostly just trying to get [her] truck back.” Tr. Vol. II at 29. During the hearing on Frazier's claim, Frazier produced invoices showing that, from March 15, 2024, to June 8, 2024, Flick made 11 payments to Frazier, totaling $11,575.01. Of this total, $4,917.18 was money Flick received from her insurance company for truck repairs. Flick reiterated that she directed Frazier to use this money for truck repairs and that, “[a]s far as [she] knew, the money always went to the truck. Because that was [her] main goal.” Id. at 61. However, Frazier explained that he keeps a “common account” when working on multiple vehicles for one customer and applies payments at his discretion. Id. at 57. Instead of applying the insurance money to truck repairs, Frazier stated that he applied $11,103.24 of Flick's payments toward repairs to the Bobcat and $302.64 toward the Pontiac, leaving only $50 to be applied to the truck. Frazier stated that he “could have had her truck done with proper funding probably by October or November, easily,” but could not complete the repairs due to Flick's lack of payment. Id. at 39.

[7] The small claims court denied Frazier's claim for additional fees, finding in relevant part that Flick “paid [Frazier] over $11,500. [Flick] received insurance money and directed that money was to be used toward repairing her truck. Instead and without knowledge of [Flick], [Frazier] was using those funds on another project (the Bobcat repair).” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 10. The court also noted that “[d]uring the time that [Frazier] had possession, the truck went from being drivable to a state of utter disrepair and undrivable.” Id. Frazier now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Frazier appeals the small claims court's denial of his request for $4,858.38 in unpaid fees for truck repairs. 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). “We generally review small claims judgments for clear error, giving considerable deference to the small claims court and its assessment of witness credibility.” Piccadilly Mgmt. v. Abney, 215 N.E.3d 1078, 1079 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Muldowney v. Lincoln Park, LLC, 83 N.E.3d 130, 132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017)). “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 parties according to the rules of substantive law.” Branham v. Varble, 952 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. 2011) (citing Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196, 1199 (Ind. 2008)).

We consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. [Berryhill v. Parkview Hosp., 962 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).] 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).

[9] Before addressing the merits, we note that Flick did not file an appellee's brief, so we will reverse the small claims court's judgment if Frazier's brief presents a case of prima facie error. See Salyer v. Washington Regular Baptist Church Cemetery, 141 N.E.3d 384, 386 (Ind. 2020) (quoting Front Row Motors, LLC v. Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753, 758 (Ind. 2014)). “Prima facie error in this context means ‘at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.’ ” Id. (quoting Front Row Motors, 5 N.E.3d at 758).

[10] Here, the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict show that Flick paid Frazier over $11,000 for vehicle repairs, and $4,917.18 of that total was truck insurance money which Flick specifically directed Frazier to apply to the truck repairs. Despite Flick's direction, and without Flick's knowledge, Frazier instead applied the truck insurance money to the Bobcat, leaving a balance on the truck which would not have existed had Frazier followed Flick's instructions. Simply put, had Frazier applied the $4,917.18 in truck insurance money to the $4,858.38 in unpaid fees that Frazier claims he is owed for the truck repairs, the bill would have been paid in full.

[11] Frazier contends that “[t]he order denying payment to [him] ․ in this case does not consider the invoiced, photographed and requested repairs provided to [Flick's] truck.” Appellant's Br. at 7. However, the small claims court directly considered Frazier's submitted invoices when making the order and believed Flick's testimony that she directed the insurance proceeds be used for truck repairs. Frazier's arguments amount to a request for us to reweigh evidence and witness credibility, which we cannot do. See Piccadilly Mgmt., 215 N.E.3d at 1079 (citing Muldowney, 83 N.E.3d at 132). We cannot say that Frazier has presented a case of prima facie error. Thus, the small claims court's denial of Frazier's claim was not clearly erroneous, and we affirm that decision.

[12] Affirmed.

Felix, Judge.

May, J., and Foley, J., concur.