MASTER MOVERS LLC v. FORMYDUVAL (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In this Court's prior decision in this case, we noted that Sibyl and Ron Formyduval contracted with Master Movers, LLC, to transport their personal property from their residence in Fishers to a warehouse to their new residence in Carmel. Master Movers, LLC v. Formyduval, No. 24A-SC-1643, 2025 WL 1693683, at *1 (Ind. Ct. App. June 17, 2025) (mem.). Master Movers extorted $600 in tips from the Formyduvals and damaged numerous items during the moving process. The Formyduvals filed a notice of claim against Master Movers. At the evidentiary hearing, the Formyduvals presented photos of damaged items and the claim form that they had submitted to Master Movers, and Sibyl testified that they had sustained an estimated $10,000 to $15,000 in damages. The trial court ruled in the Formyduvals’ favor and calculated their damages by finding that Master Movers had damaged 46.4 percent of the items shipped, multiplying that figure by $8,231.93, and adding the $600 in tips, for a total award of $4,419.62.

[2] Master Movers appealed. We affirmed the trial court's finding of liability in the Formyduvals’ favor but reversed and remanded for recalculation of their damages based on the damaged property's fair market value. We directed the court to “consider the foregoing substantive legal rules [regarding fair market value] and evidence and recalculate the Formyduvals’ damages accordingly, making sure to include the $600 in tips that Master Movers collected from the Formyduvals under duress.” Id. at *3.

[3] On July 1, 2025, two weeks after we issued our memorandum decision,¹ the trial court entered an order that states in pertinent part, “[A]fter review of the court record, testimony taken, and evidence admitted, the [Formyduvals are] awarded property loss of $10,000-$15,000 plus the additional tips paid of $600.00. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS, [t]hat judgment is rendered in favor of [the Formyduvals] for the sum of $10,000 plus costs and post judgment interest at 8% per annum.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 7 (bold omitted).²

[4] Master Movers now appeals, arguing that “[a] hearing is necessary in this instance to assess fair market [value] and give each side the opportunity to present evidence.” Appellant's Br. at 6. We disagree. As stated above, this Court specifically directed the trial court to recalculate the Formyduvals’ damages based on the “foregoing substantive legal rules and evidence[,]” i.e., the testimony and exhibits that were presented at the evidentiary hearing. And that is precisely what the trial court did. It is well settled that “[e]vidence of fair market value may include the plaintiff's testimony.” Bokori v. Martinoski, 70 N.E.3d 441, 444 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). On remand, the trial court was able to consider Sibyl's testimony regarding the Formyduvals’ estimated damages, the “four-page claim form ․ listing the items of damaged property and the estimated repair cost for each item” (which is one measure of an item's fair market value), and “photos of damaged items.” Master Movers, 2025 WL 1693683, at *1. Obviously, the trial court found that Sibyl's testimony was credible and consistent with the other evidence presented.

[5] “[A] plaintiff should not receive a recovery that constitutes a windfall.” Bokori, 70 N.E.3d at 444. “However, the plaintiff need not bear the burden of negating the possibility of a windfall; that burden falls on the defendant.” Id. Here, Master Movers has failed to carry its burden to show that the trial court's judgment constitutes a windfall for the Formyduvals. Accordingly, we affirm.

[6] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The decision was not certified until August 11. We remind all concerned that the trial court and the parties “shall not take any action in reliance upon [an] opinion or memorandum decision until the opinion or memorandum decision is certified.” Ind. Appellate Rule 65(E). Master Movers does not challenge the validity of the trial court's order on this basis.

2.   Per Indiana Code Section 33-29-2-4(b), $10,000 is the jurisdictional limit in small claims actions.

Bailey, Judge.

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