CJM v. Scott Mann, Appellee-Defendant (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] In this small claims case arising from a home renovation dispute, CJM Construction (“CJM”) filed a notice of claim against Scott Mann (“Mann”). Mann then filed a counterclaim against CJM. CJM appeals the small claims court's judgment that awarded $10,000 to Mann on his counterclaim against CJM. CJM argues that the small claims court erred when it: (1) denied CJM's motion to strike Mann's counterclaim; (2) denied CJM's Trial Rule 60 motion to set aside the counterclaim judgment; and (3) denied CJM's petition to transfer and request for a jury trial. Concluding that the small claims court did not err, we affirm the small claims court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issues

1. Whether the small claims court erred when it denied CJM's motion to strike Mann's counterclaim.

2. Whether the small claims court erred when it denied CJM's Trial Rule 60 motion to set aside the counterclaim judgment.

3. Whether the small claims court erred when it denied CJM's petition to transfer and request for a jury trial.

Facts

[3] In the summer of 2023, Mann hired CJM to renovate his house. CJM estimated that the renovation would cost roughly $54,000, and Mann agreed to that cost. CJM and Mann did not have a written contract. From July 2023 to November 2023, Mann paid CJM $45,000, and CJM worked on the home renovation. In December 2023, CJM sent an invoice in the amount of $6,629 to Mann. CJM considered this bill as a progress payment and had not calculated a final estimate for the cost of the renovation. Mann refused to pay, and CJM refused to continue working without a progress payment. The working relationship between CJM and Mann broke down and led to this small claims action.

[4] In January 2024, CJM filed a notice of claim. In its notice of claim, CJM asserted that Mann owed CJM $6,145 for “the work that ha[d] been done [by CJM]” and for materials. (App. Vol. 2 at 8). CJM listed its email address on the notice of claim, and the notice of claim included a notice provision that provided that “[w]hen you provide an email address on this form or an Appearance, all notices and orders will be distributed by email, and you will no longer receive paper copies of the notices and orders from the Court.” (App. Vol. 2 at 9).

[5] The notice of claim also provided that, by filing a notice of small claim, CJM “waive[d] (g[a]ve[ ] up) the right to a jury trial.” (App. Vol. 2 at 9). The notice of claim further provided that a defendant waived his or her right to a jury trial “unless the defendant file[d] a Request for Jury Trial that complie[d] with Indiana Code § 33-29-2-7 within ten (10) days of the receipt of the Notice of Small Claim, pursuant to Ind. Small Claims Rule 4(C).” (App. Vol. 2 at 9). CJM also filed an affidavit explaining that Christa McGinty (“McGinty”) was a designated full time employee of CJM and was representing CJM.

[6] In February 2024, the small claims court held an initial hearing, during which it set a bench trial for April 2024 and ordered the parties to file all of their evidence by March 2024. CJM and Mann both timely submitted evidence to the small claims court, and this evidence included invoices, text messages, and quotes.

[7] In April 2024, the small claims court held a bench trial. At the trial, McGinty appeared for CJM and Mann represented himself. McGinty testified that CJM and Mann had no written contract for Mann's home renovation. McGinty also testified that CJM was requesting the $6,145 for work that had already been done and for materials that CJM had already purchased. Additionally, McGinty testified that CJM's quotes were only estimates and that CJM had no paperwork showing a final cost for the renovation project. During her testimony, McGinty explained to the small claims court that any changes in cost had been “in ․ text messages[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 14). McGinty testified that it was “probably on [her] for not printing all [the text messages] off and sending” them to the small claims court. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 14). When the small claims court asked McGinty if she had anything in writing and signed by CJM and Mann showing the changes in cost for the renovation project, McGinty replied, “I mean, no, we had verbally ․ committed” to doing additional work. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 14).

[8] Mann testified that he did not understand what the unpaid CJM invoice charged him for because he had already paid $45,000, and he believed that the unpaid invoice contained charges that had already been paid on previous invoices. Additionally, Mann explained that CJM had not finished the renovations but had also damaged his home. Specifically, Mann told the small claims court that the bathroom renovation had not been completed and that his bathtub had a leak. Mann also included in his evidence an estimate from a plumbing company totaling over $17,000 and an estimate from an electrical company for $9,950 to finish the renovation and repair the damage to his home.

[9] The small claims court asked Mann if he had filed a counterclaim, and he responded, “[n]o.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 19). In response, the small claims court told the parties that “in general, the law require[d] that a matter be resolved at one time.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 32). Additionally, the small claims court told the parties that if a defendant thought “they [we]re owed something” from the plaintiff, “that should be taken care of simultaneously[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 32). Mann expressed interest in filing a counterclaim and asked the small claims court if he could do so “verbally on record[,]” and the small claims court replied, “[n]o.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 33). Moreover, the small claims court explained that CJM was entitled “to have notice of what the counterclaim [was]” and “exactly what [Mann] was asking for.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 33). In addition, the small claims court told the parties that it just “want[ed] to be fair to both sides.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 34).

[10] Thereafter, the small claims court took a brief recess before returning to the bench. When it returned to the bench, the small claims court asked both parties if they had told the court everything that they wanted the small claims court to know, and both parties responded in the affirmative. The small claims court told the parties that it would take the matter under advisement. Additionally, the small claims court explained that if Mann filed a counterclaim for more than $10,000, the case would be moved to the trial court. Further, the small claims court explained that, if Mann did not file a counterclaim, it would make a decision based on the evidence that it had already heard. The small claims court also told the parties that if Mann filed a counterclaim for $10,000 or less, the small claims court would hold a “further hearing where both [parties] would have the ability to present additional evidence[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 39). When the small claims court asked McGinty if this made sense, she responded in the affirmative. McGinty, at no point during this hearing, objected to Mann filing a counterclaim.

[11] Later that day, Mann filed a notice of counterclaim, in which he requested damages in the amount of $10,000 for “damages and unfinished work” on the home renovation. (App. Vol. 2 at 140). The counterclaim notice also provided that the counterclaim had to be received by the plaintiff/counter-defendant at least seven days before the hearing and that if it were not filed within that time period, then the counterclaim “may not be heard.” (App. Vol. 2 at 140). The counterclaim notice further provided that the small claims court “may enter a default judgment against” CJM “if [CJM] fail[ed] to appear for the hearing.” (App. Vol. 2 at 140).

[12] The chronological case summary (“CCS”) reveals that, on April 18, 2023, notice of Mann's counterclaim was issued to all parties. On April 19, 2024, the small claims court issued an order that reviewed what had occurred during the April 18 bench trial, including Mann's desire to pursue a counterclaim, the need for CJM to have notice of the counterclaim, the jurisdictional limits of the small claims court, and “the need to address all claims arising out [of] the same events simultaneously[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 141). The small claims court's order set a further bench trial and counterclaim hearing for May 23, 2024. The CCS also reveals that notice of the order was sent to all parties.

[13] At the May 2024 bench trial, Mann appeared, but CJM did not. The small claims court, while on the record, checked to ensure that CJM had received notice of the hearing. The small claims court noted that an email notice had been sent to CJM on April 23, 2024, and that the email had “not bounce[d] back as undeliverable to the email that [CJM] had supplied.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 45). At the conclusion of the hearing, the small claims court issued judgment in favor of Mann on his counterclaim in the amount of $10,000, and it dismissed CJM's notice of claim without prejudice. That same day, the small claims court also issued an order that reflected this judgment, and that order was issued to CJM.

[14] Two weeks later, on June 6, 2024, counsel for CJM filed an appearance. That same day, CJM also filed: (1) a motion to strike Mann's counterclaim; (2) a motion to set aside the counterclaim judgment; and (3) a petition to transfer the case to a trial court plenary docket and a request for a jury trial (collectively, “the June 2024 motions”). In its motion to strike Mann's counterclaim, CJM argued that Mann's counterclaim should be stricken because it had not been filed seven days before trial as required by Indiana Small Claims Rule 5. In its motion to set aside the counterclaim judgment, CJM argued that the judgment should be set aside because CJM had not received notice of the May 23, 2024 hearing. CJM asked the small claims court to set aside the judgment pursuant to Trial Rule 60(A), 60(B)(1), 60(B)(2), and 60(B)(8). In its petition to transfer to a plenary docket and request for a jury trial, CJM argued that Mann's counterclaim “raise[d] questions of fact requiring a trial by jury[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 154).

[15] Two weeks later, the small claims court denied all of the June 2024 motions. In its order denying CJM's motion to strike Mann's counterclaim, the small claims court noted that Mann's counterclaim had been filed on April 18, 2024 and that its order setting hearing had been sent to CJM on April 23, 2024. The small claims court's order concluded that there had been “thirty (30) days between the Order Setting Hearing following receipt of [Mann's] Counterclaim and the hearing date.” (App. Vol. 2 at 159).

[16] In its order denying CJM's Trial Rule 60 motion to set aside the counterclaim judgment, the small claims court found, in relevant part, the following:

4. On February 21, 2024, the Wayne County Clerk's staff emailed the Initial Hearing Order, which set the [April 4, 2024] Bench Trial, to [CJM] at ․ the email address supplied by [CJM] on the Notice of Small Claim. The email was not returned as undeliverable.

* * * * *

6. On April 2, 2024, the Wayne County Clerk's staff emailed the Order Continuing Hearing [to April 18, 2024] to [CJM] using the email address supplied by [CJM]. The email was not returned as undeliverable.

7. On April 18, 2024, the parties appeared for the scheduled Bench Trial. Because of statements made by [Mann], there was discussion about whether there was a pending claim made by [Mann] against [CJM]. [Mann] indicated that there was no separate action pending, but [Mann] was considering it. [CJM] was present during the discussions. [CJM] and [Mann] presented evidence as to the Notice of Small Claim. The parties were told on the record that:

a. the Court took the matter under advisement,

b. if [Mann] chose to file a Counterclaim, the Counterclaim would be set for hearing, and

c. if [Mann] did not file a Counterclaim, the Court would issue an order based on the evidence presented on April 18, 2024.

8. On April 18, 2024, [Mann] filed a Counterclaim.

9. On April 19, 2024, the Wayne County Clerk's staff emailed a notice to [CJM] using the email address supplied by [CJM]. The email was not returned as undeliverable.

10. On April 22, 2024, the Court issued an Order Setting Hearing for further Bench Trial on the Claim and a hearing on the Counterclaim on May 23, 2024, at 2:30 p.m.

11. On April 23, 2024, the Wayne County Clerk's staff emailed the Order Setting Hearing and the Hearing Scheduling Activity entry to [CJM] using the email address supplied by [CJM]. The email address was not returned as undeliverable.

12. On May 23, 2024, further Bench Trial and a hearing on the Counterclaim was held. [CJM] failed to appear. [Mann] appeared.

13. On May 23, 2024, the Court issued a Judgment.

14. On May 24, 2024, the Wayne County Clerk's staff emailed the Judgment to [CJM] using the email address supplied by [CJM]. The email address was not returned as undeliverable.

(App. Vol. 2 at 166-67).

[17] In its order denying CJM's petition to transfer the case to a trial court plenary docket and a request for a jury trial, the small claims court found that CJM had “chose[n] to file this matter as a small claim[,]” CJM had “no right to request a jury trial in a small claims case[,]” and Mann had not requested a jury trial. (App. Vol. 2 at 157). The small claims court also noted that small claims actions were informal and the purpose of small claims actions was to speedily dispense justice to the parties.

[18] After denying the June 2024 motions, the small claims court nevertheless set a hearing for August 2024 to allow CJM “to present evidence as to the Counterclaim only.” (App. Vol. 2 at 160). The small claims court also noted that CJM “did not exercise care” after being told that further hearings may be scheduled and “failed to attend the hearing on Counterclaim.” (App. Vol. 2 at 160). In July 2024, CJM filed a motion to correct error relating to its three denied motions.

[19] At the August 2024 hearing, CJM reasserted that it had not received notice of the May 23, 2024 hearing. In response, the small claims court stated that its records showed that CJM had received notice, but it was allowing CJM to present evidence on Mann's counterclaim. CJM questioned Mann regarding the costs of repairs. Additionally, Mann testified further about the damage caused by CJM to his home during the home renovation.

[20] After the hearing, the small claims court issued an amended judgment and order denying CJM's motion to correct error. In its order, the small claims court entered judgment in favor of Mann in the amount of $10,000, and it determined that CJM should not recover anything on its claim against Mann.

[21] CJM now appeals.

Decision

[22] At the outset, we note that Mann 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).

[23] CJM argues that the small claims court erred in multiple respects. 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 the party 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.

[24] CJM specifically argues that the small claims court erred when it: (1) denied CJM's motion to strike Mann's counterclaim; (2) denied CJM's Trial Rule 60 motion to set aside the counterclaim judgment; and (3) denied CJM's petition to transfer and request for a jury trial. We address each of CJM's contentions in turn.

1. Motion to Strike the Counterclaim

[25] CJM argues that the small claims court erred when it denied CJM's motion to strike Mann's counterclaim. We disagree.

[26] We review a decision regarding a motion to strike for an abuse of discretion. Williamson v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 55 N.E.3d 906, 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). A trial court abuses its discretion when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

[27] CJM focuses its argument on the fact that Mann had filed his counterclaim after the bench trial had commenced, which it asserts is in violation of Indiana Small Claims Rule 5. CJM notes that Mann did not file his counterclaim until after CJM had presented its case and after the bench trial had started, and CJM argues that the small claims court erred by allowing Mann to file his counterclaim.

[28] Indiana Small Claims Rule 5(A) provides that “the defendant may bring or mail a statement of such claim to the small claims court within such time as will allow the court to mail a copy to the plaintiff and be received by the plaintiff at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the trial.”

[29] Our review of the record reveals that at the April 18, 2024 bench trial, CJM was made aware that Mann would likely file a counterclaim, and CJM did not object at any point during that hearing. That same day, Mann filed his counterclaim, and the CCS revealed that notice of Mann's counterclaim was sent to CJM. Further, the May 23, 2024 hearing on Mann's counterclaim was over a month after CJM had been notified of Mann's counterclaim, which is significantly more notice than the seven days required by Indiana Small Claims Rule 5. Although we acknowledge that the bench trial commenced on April 18, 2024, we note that the purpose of Indiana Small Claims Rule 5 is to give adequate notice to the plaintiff, and that purpose was met here. We conclude that the small claims court did not err.¹

2. Motion to Set Aside the Counterclaim Judgment

[30] CJM also argues that the small claims court erred when it denied its motion to set aside the counterclaim judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) affords relief only in “extraordinary circumstances” that are not the result of the moving party's fault or negligence. Z.S. v. J.F., 918 N.E.2d 636, 640 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citation omitted). We review the denial of a motion for relief from judgment for abuse of discretion. Id. at 639. “The trial court's discretion is necessarily broad in this area because any determination of excusable neglect, surprise, or mistake must turn upon the unique factual background of each case.” Huntington Nat. Bank v. Car-X Assoc. Corp., 39 N.E.3d 652, 655 (Ind. 2015). The moving party carries the burden of showing that relief is both necessary and just. Z.S., 918 N.E.2d at 639.

[31] CJM specifically argues that it was “reasonable and logical to conclude neither McGinty nor CJM received electronic notice of the hearing on Mann's counterclaim.” (CJM's Br. 14). CJM frames the lack of receipt of email notice as one that occurred “as a result of mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect[,]” and argues that this error constitutes a basis to justify relief from judgment. (CJM's Br. 14). We disagree.

[32] Here, our review of the record reveals that CJM, when it filed its notice of claim, opted into service through email and provided an email to the small claims court. The CCS reveals that CJM was given notice of Mann's counterclaim and the small claims court's order setting the May 2024 hearing. We do not find CJM's conclusory assertions that it is entitled to relief from the judgment because it did not receive notice convincing.

[33] Additionally, CJM makes no argument that relief from the judgment is both necessary and just. Further, we note that Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) provides that a party moving for relief from judgment due to mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect must “allege a meritorious claim or defense.” Here, CJM has failed to do so, and its claim also fails for this reason. See Sanders Kennels, Inc. v. Lane, 153 N.E.3d 262, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (noting that a movant filing pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B)(1) must also allege a meritorious claim or defense). We further note that the small claims court, in the August 2024 hearing, allowed CJM to present evidence on Mann's counterclaim – which was precisely what CJM would have done if it had appeared at the May 2024 hearing. CJM has failed to meet its burden of showing that the small claims court erred when it denied its motion to set aside the counterclaim judgment.

3. Petition to Transfer and Request for a Jury Trial

[34] CJM also argues that the small claims court erred when it denied CJM's petition to transfer the case to a trial court plenary docket and request for a jury trial. We disagree.

[35] Indiana Code § 33-29-2-7(a) provides that “[t]he filing of a claim on the small claims docket is considered a waiver of trial by jury.” Additionally, Indiana Code § 33-29-2-7(b) provides that:

A defendant may, not later than ten (10) days following service of the complaint in a small claims case, demand a trial by jury by filing an affidavit that:

(1) states that there are questions of fact requiring a trial by jury;

(2) specifies those questions of fact; and

(3) states that the demand is in good faith.

Indiana Small Claims Rule 4(C) provides that “[u]nless filed within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of claim the [defendant's] right to a jury trial is waived.”

[36] As set forth in Indiana Code § 33-29-2-7(a), CJM waived its right to a jury trial by filing its claim in the small claims court. Indeed, when CJM filed its notice of claim, that document clearly provided that, by filing a notice of small claim, CJM “waive[d] (g[a]ve[ ] up) the right to a jury trial.” (App. Vol. 2 at 9). In its order denying CJM's petition to transfer and request for a jury trial, the small claims court specifically found that CJM chose to file its claim as a small claim and had no right to a jury trial in a small claims case. We conclude that CJM waived its right to a jury trial. Accordingly, we hold that the small claims court did not err.²

[37] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We conclude that there was also no abuse of the small claims court's discretion when it denied the motion because the motion was untimely. See Indiana Trial Rule 12(F) (providing that a motion to strike should be filed by a party “within twenty [20] days after the service of the pleading upon [it] or at any time upon the court's own initiative”). We note that Mann filed his counterclaim on April 18, 2024, and CJM's motion to strike Mann's counterclaim was filed on June 6, 2024.

2.   CJM recognizes that the language of Indiana Small Claims Rule 4(C) refers only to a defendant being able to seek a jury trial, but it seeks to have that Rule 4(C) applied to it as the counterclaim defendant to Mann's counterclaim. We need not decide that issue because CJM did not file its petition to transfer and request for a jury trial until seven weeks after Mann had filed his counterclaim and two weeks after the small claims court had entered judgment on Mann's counterclaim. This is certainly longer than the ten-day window required by Indiana Code § 33-29-2-7(b) and Indiana Small Claims Rule 4(C).

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.