ZORE INC v. CAMPBELL (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Zore's Inc. appeals the small claims court's judgment for Kristopher Campbell.¹ Zore's raises two issues for our review, which we restate as follows:

1. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Zore's post-trial motion for relief based on newly discovered evidence.

2. Whether Campbell presented sufficient evidence to support the small claims court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In the late evening hours of August 12, 2024, Marion County law enforcement officers arrested Campbell at a gas station. He had driven to the gas station on a 2006 Harley Davidson motorcycle. Following his arrest, law enforcement officers contacted Zore's to tow the motorcycle. In doing so, Zore's “tore up” the fender and air-ride system and also chipped the paint on the motorcycle. Tr. p. 5. When Campbell went to Zore's to recover his motorcycle, he had to have it towed again.

[4] On August 19, Campbell filed a small claims complaint against Zore's to recover the damages to his motorcycle. Following a continuance granted on Zore's request, the small claims court held the first day of its bench trial on Campbell's complaint on October 15. At that hearing, Campbell testified about the damages to his motorcycle and provided the court with photographs of the motorcycle from August 12 but prior to Zore's towing it as well as a recording of the motorcycle while it was still on Zore's property.

[5] Following the presentation of that evidence, the court took the matter under advisement to allow Zore's to present contrary evidence at a later date. The court then set an additional hearing date for November 12, which, on Zore's request, the court continued to November 27. Zore's did not appear before the court on the November 27 date, and the court entered judgment for Campbell in the amount of $9,200.

[6] On December 27, Zore's filed a request for a subpoena duces tecum to arresting officers for their body-camera recordings, which Zore's alleged would show that it had properly towed the motorcycle. A few days later, Zore's filed a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment on the belief that the body-camera recordings would “reveal that [Campbell's] testimony upon which the Court relied ․ was incorrect, incomplete, and, perhaps, untruthful.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 60. The court denied Zore's Trial Rule 60(B) request.

[7] This appeal ensued.

Standard of Review

[8] Zore's appeals the small claims court's judgment for Campbell. Small claims actions involve informal trials with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law. Harvey v. Keyed in Prop. Mgmt., LLC, 165 N.E.3d 584, 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. Accordingly, judgments from small claims actions are provided a deferential standard of review. Id. We will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Pfledderer v. Pratt, 142 N.E.3d 492, 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). However, this deferential standard relates only to procedural and evidentiary issues; it does not apply to substantive rules of law, which we review de novo. Id.

[9] We also note that Campbell has not filed an appellee's brief. When the appellee fails to file a brief on appeal, we may reverse the trial court's decision if the appellant makes a prima facie showing of reversible error. McGill v. McGill, 801 N.E.2d 1249, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). In this context, prima facie error is defined as “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Orlich v. Orlich, 859 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). This rule was established to make clear that it is not the burden of the court on appeal to rebut apparently valid arguments advanced for reversing the trial court's judgment. See McGill, 801 N.E.2d at 1251.

1. The court properly denied Zore's Trial Rule 60(B) request.

[10] We first address Zore's argument that the trial court erred when it denied Zore's Trial Rule 60(B) request. Zore's presents this issue as an appeal from a “[d]iscovery ruling[,]” but that is incorrect. Appellant's Br. at 9. Zore's request for the body-camera evidence was a post-judgment request for new evidence. Such requests are typically governed by Trial Rule 59(A)(1), which addresses circumstances in which a party seeks to address “[n]ewly discovered material evidence ․ capable of production within thirty (30) days of final judgment which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and produced at trial ․” Although Zore's styled its trial motion under Trial Rule 60(B), subpart (2) of that Rule applies to newly discovered evidence outside of the Trial Rule 59 timeframes. Because Zore's request was within the Trial Rule 59 timeframes, we consider it to have been a Rule 59 request.

[11] In any event, Zore's request for the arresting officers’ body-camera evidence was not evidence that “could not have been discovered and produced” in a timely manner for trial. Ind. Trial Rule 59(A)(1). Zore's had ample notice of the nature and circumstances of Campell's claim and had received multiple continuances of the hearing on Campbell's complaint, including the extraordinary opportunity from the trial court to extend the bench trial for over a month so that Zore's could respond to Campbell's evidence. Instead, Zore's failed to appear before the court at the later date.

[12] The trial court properly denied Zore's post-trial request to pursue additional discovery.

2. Campbell presented sufficient evidence to support the court's judgment.

[13] Zore's also argues that Campbell failed to present sufficient evidence to support the small claims court's judgment. In particular, Zore's argues that the evidence was in conflict, that Campbell's testimony was “self serving,” and that Campbell may have been the actual cause of the damage to the motorcycle. Appellant's Br. at 7. But Zore's arguments are simply requests for our Court to reweigh the evidence and to reassess the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do. Campbell testified that his motorcycle was in good shape prior to Zore's taking possession of it and was damaged afterward. And his testimony was supported by photographs and a recording. He therefore presented sufficient evidence to support the small claims court's judgment.

Conclusion

[14] For all of these reasons, we affirm the small claims court's judgment for Campbell.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Simone Franklin was also a named plaintiff, but for ease of discussion we simply refer to Campbell.

Mathias, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Pyle, J., concur.