ZIGLER v. MINA GROUP LLC (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] After the small claims court entered judgment in favor of Ashlynne Zigler's landlord Mina Group LLC for rent Zigler owed, Zigler filed a motion to set aside that judgment, alleging for the first time that Mina Group had failed to comply with certain procedural requirements. The small claims court denied Zigler's motion. Zigler now appeals and presents one issue for our review that we revise and restate as follows: Whether the trial court erred by denying Zigler's motion to set aside the judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In 2023, Zigler and her then boyfriend executed a lease to rent 330 Park Street, Mulberry, Indiana, from Mina Group. Noshy Hanna signed the lease on behalf of Mina Group as “LANDLORD.” Tr. Vol. IV at 8. In 2024, Mina Group filed a claim against Zigler for $2,800 in unpaid rent.¹ At the October bench trial on this claim, Mina Group was represented by Noshy and Arreni Hanna. Neither Mina Group nor Zigler were represented by counsel. After the hearing, the small claims court made a “Hearing Journal Entry” in the Chronological Case Summary (“CCS”) that Mina Group “appear[ed] by owner and representative.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 4. A few weeks later, the small claims court entered judgment in favor of Mina Group.

[4] In February 2025, Zigler—who was now represented by counsel—filed an Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion to have the judgment set aside, arguing that Mina Group violated Indiana Small Claims Rule 2(B)(4)(a) concerning attachment of written contracts and Small Claims Rule 8(C)(5) concerning under what circumstances an employee may represent a corporate entity.² The small claims court denied Zigler's motion. This appeal ensued.³

Discussion and Decision

The Small Claims Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Denying Zigler's Trial Rule 60(B) Motion

[5] Zigler argues only that the trial court erred by allowing the Hannas to represent Mina Group at the hearing. Zigler does not acknowledge, however, that she is appealing the small claims court's denial of her Trial Rule 60(B) motion. Consequently, Zigler does not present the applicable standard of review or rules of law. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring cogent reasoning); id. 46(A)(8)(b) (requiring a party's argument include “a concise statement of the applicable standard of review”). We nevertheless choose to address the merits of her claim. See Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015) (holding noncompliance with Appellate Rules may result in waiver).

[6] We next observe that the record, including Zigler's briefing, does not elucidate what provision of Trial Rule 60(B) applies here. We thus assume she brought her motion under the Trial Rule 60(B)(8) catch-all provision, which provides in relevant part that a judgment may be set aside for “any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment,” so long as the movant can “allege a meritorious claim or defense.”⁴ We review the denial of a Trial Rule 60(B)(8) motion for an abuse of discretion, “which occurs when the court ‘misinterprets the law’ or the decision ‘clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before’ the court.” Corcoran v. State, 246 N.E.3d 1223, 1225 (Ind. 2024) (quoting T.D. v. State, 219 N.E.3d 719, 724 (Ind. 2023)). Additionally, Mina Group did not file an appellee's brief here, so we will reverse the small claims court's judgment if Zigler'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).

[7] The small claims court determined that Zigler's Trial Rule 60(B) motion failed for three reasons: (1) Zigler failed to raise at trial any issue regarding Mina Group's failure to attach the lease to the notice of claim pursuant to Small Claims Rule 2(B)(4)(a), so she waived that issue; (2) pursuant to the version of Small Claims Rule 8 in effect in October 2024, Mina Group did not need to designate an employee to represent it at trial because it was represented by its owner; and (3) Zigler failed to “identify a meritorious defense to the judgment.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 11. On appeal, Zigler challenges only the trial court's determination regarding Small Claims Rule 8. Regardless of whether Zigler's appellate challenge has merit, her claim still must fail because she does not dispute the trial court's determination that she failed to allege a meritorious defense in her Trial Rule 60(B) motion.

[8] Even if Zigler had alleged a meritorious defense or claim, her Small Claims Rule 8 argument is unpersuasive. In 2024, Small Claims Rule 8(C)(3) allowed an LLC to be represented in small claims proceedings by “counsel, owner, or by a designated full-time employee of the corporate entity.” Ind. Small Claims Rule 8(C)(3) (effective Jan. 1, 2022, to Dec. 31, 2024) (emphasis added). Small Claims Rule 8(C)(5) governed the procedure for how an LLC designates a full-time employee to represent its interests. S.C.R. 8(C)(5) (effective Jan. 1, 2022, to Dec. 31, 2024). Here, the CCS reflects that Mina Group was represented at the October 2024 trial by its owner. Zigler does not dispute the accuracy of that information. Because Mina Group was represented by an owner, there was no need for it to comply with Small Claims Rule 8(C)(5).

[9] Based on the foregoing, we cannot say that Zigler has made a prima facie showing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her Trial Rule 60(B) motion. We therefore affirm that denial.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Zigler fails to include in her appendix the operative notice of claim, the judgment, and other relevant documents. See Ind. Appellate Rule 50(A). Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 27 and Indiana Evidence Rule 201, we have taken judicial notice of these documents. See Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154, 1156 (Ind. 2016) (taking judicial notice under Evidence Rule 201 of documents that were part of the Record on Appeal as defined in Appellate Rule 27).

2.   Small Claims Rule 8 was amended effective January 1, 2025. Order Amending Rules for Small Claims, No. 24S-MS-1 (Ind. Dec. 19, 2024); see also Appellant's App. Vol. II at 15–17.

3.   Zigler's Statement of Case and Statement of Facts are identical, see Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) (providing the Statement of Facts “need not repeat what is in the statement of the case”), and the minimal facts she provides regarding the representation of Mina Group are not included in her Statement of Facts but are instead only in her Argument, see id. 46(A)(6) (providing all “facts relevant to the issues presented for review” must be included in the Statement of Facts). Zigler also fails to support with record citations most of the statements of fact in her Statement of Case and Statement of Facts, as required by Indiana Appellate Rules 46(A)(5) and 46(A)(6)(a), respectively. We remind counsel that the purpose of our appellate rules—especially Appellate Rule 46 governing the content of briefs—“is to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case.” Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023) (emphasis added) (quoting Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)).

4.   To the extent Zigler's Trial Rule 60(B) motion was not brought under subsection 8, it was likely brought under subsection 1 (“mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect”) or subsection 2 (“any ground for a motion to correct error”), both of which also require a meritorious defense allegation, Ind. Trial Rule 60(B), and the decisions for which are also reviewed for an abuse of discretion, Wilkerson v. Egan, 253 N.E.3d 1149, 1151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting Bello v. Bello, 102 N.E.3d 891, 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)), trans. not sought.

Felix, Judge.

Brown, J., and Scheele, J., concur.