Austin Apple, Appellant-Petitioner v. Boone County Treasurer, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Austin Apple appeals the small claims court's judgment in favor of the Boone County Treasurer (the Treasurer), denying his request for reimbursement of a delinquent property tax penalty. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Apple owns real property in Boone County. Apple's Spring 2024 property tax installment of $2,120.13 was due on May 10, 2024. On or around May 8, through Purdue Federal Credit Union's (PFCU) electronic bill-pay system, Apple authorized PFCU to send a check to the Treasurer on his behalf. PFCU used a third-party check-processing service located in Oklahoma to process such requests. That check-processing service generated a physical check for Apple's tax payment dated Wednesday, May 8, 2024. The check processor inserted the check into a “presorted first-class mail U.S. postage paid” envelope that bore no postmark date. Ex. Vol. I p. 6 (capitalization omitted). The envelope was deposited into the U.S. mail at some point, and the Treasurer marked it “received” on Monday, May 13. Id. (capitalization omitted).

[3] Because the check was received three days past the due date, the Treasurer assessed a five percent delinquent penalty pursuant to Indiana Code section 6-1.1-37-10 (2024), totaling $106.26. Apple emailed the Treasurer, alleged PFCU's check processor mailed the check timely, and requested the penalty be removed. The Treasurer informed Apple that his documentation did not provide the proof of mailing required to remove the penalty. Apple then paid the penalty.

[4] In February 2025, Apple filed a small claims action against the Treasurer, requesting reimbursement of the $106.26 penalty plus court costs. At a November bench trial, Apple admitted copies of the check and the envelope in which the check was mailed. He also admitted an uncertified document (Exhibit 4) that he printed from his online PFCU account showing proof of payment, which says, “Payment has been mailed – 5/9/2024[.]” Id. at 11. At the top of Exhibit 4 is an informal header that says “Proof of Payment” and at the bottom is a footer that contains PFCU's web address. Id. In addition, Apple testified that the check “was mailed on or before the due date[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 16. Apple argued Exhibit 4 was reasonable evidence showing that the check was mailed timely.

[5] After considering all the evidence, the court issued a written order in favor of the Treasurer, concluding that Apple failed to meet his burden of proof and denying his request for reimbursement. Apple now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Apple appeals the small claims court's denial of his claim for reimbursement of a delinquent property tax penalty. “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). Here, Apple had the burden of proof and appeals from a negative judgment. “On appeal from a negative judgment, this Court will reverse the trial court only if the judgment is contrary to law.” Ayers v. Stowers, 200 N.E.3d 480, 483 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (citation omitted). “A judgment is contrary to law if the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial court reached an opposite conclusion.” Id. However, Apple's claim also raises an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Folkening v. Van Petten, 22 N.E.3d 818, 821 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. “We first look to the plain language of the statutes and, if unambiguous, give effect to their plain meaning.” Id.

[7] Indiana Code sections 6-1.1-37-10(f) and (h) provide scenarios under which a property tax payment is considered timely paid and, thus, excepted from late penalties.¹ The small claims court concluded that Apple failed to meet either exception. On appeal, Apple only challenges the court's conclusion under section 6-1.1-37-10(h) (2024), which provides, in relevant part:

If a payment is mailed through the United States mail and is physically received after the due date ․ without a legible correct postmark, the person who mailed the payment is considered to have made the payment:

(1) on or before the due date if the person can show by reasonable evidence that the payment was deposited in the United States mail on or before the due date[.]

[8] It is undisputed that Apple's payment was received after the May 10 due date and that the envelope containing Apple's property tax payment did not contain a dated postmark. Because an envelope with no dated postmark is plainly one “without a legible correct postmark,” the court correctly concluded that subsection (h) applied to the facts of this case.²

[9] Apple contends, however, that the court misinterpreted the statutory meaning of “reasonable” and, thus, imposed additional evidentiary requirements. Specifically, he asserts the court's reasoning for finding Exhibit 4 insufficient, i.e., that “it lacked a signature, identifying header, USPS facility identification, and explanation for absence of postmark[,]” imposes requirements that do not appear in the statute. Appellant's Br. p. 10. We agree.

[10] Apple is correct that the statute does not enumerate certain indicators that would render a piece of evidence reasonable or unreasonable. And we will not add words to the statute to more narrowly define a term. See McNeil v. Anonymous Hosp., 219 N.E.3d 789, 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. Instead, the statute uses “reasonable” to describe the type of evidence that could be used to prove when the payment was deposited in the mail. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “reasonable” as “being in accordance with reason,” “not extreme or excessive,” or “moderate, fair.” Merriam-Webster, REASONABLE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster [https://perma.cc/993R-2GY4] (last visited August 5, 2026). Thus, as used in section 6-1.1-37-10(h), the plain meaning of “reasonable evidence” is rooted in fairness and moderation. It refers to evidence that, with reason, fairly shows that the payment was deposited in the mail; it stops short of imposing excessive requirements.

[11] We also note that small claims proceedings are informal and are not bound by the rules of evidence, except for those rules applying to privilege. See Small Claims Rule 8(A); Ind. Evid. Rule 101(d)(2). Indeed, the small claims court noted the inapplicability of the rules of evidence in admitting some of Apple's exhibits. See Tr. Vol. II pp. 9-10. Yet, in its written order, the small claims court found that Exhibit 4 fell short because it lacked formal indicia that are required of verified documents under the rules of evidence. We conclude the court's interpretation of “reasonable evidence” was too narrow, which led to the erroneous conclusion that Apple's Exhibit 4 was not reasonable evidence.

[12] Here, it is undisputed that Apple personally authorized PFCU to mail a check to the Treasurer before the due date. It is also undisputed that the check processor wrote the check two days before the due date. When Apple later learned that he was being charged a delinquent penalty, he reasonably consulted his PFCU online account and printed a “Proof of Payment” document that says, “Tracking Information ․ Payment has been mailed – 5/9/2024[.]” Ex. Vol. I p. 11. Looking at Exhibit 4 without the extra-statutory indicia the court enumerated, nothing remains to support a finding that Exhibit 4 is unreasonable. Instead, Exhibit 4 explicitly states the check was mailed on May 9, 2024—before the May 10 deadline—which is corroborated by the May 8 check date and Apple's own testimony. Given the plain meaning of “reasonable,” which is rooted in fairness and moderation, there is only one conclusion about Apple's Exhibit 4: it is “reasonable evidence” that the check was timely deposited in the mail within the meaning of the statute. As such, we conclude the trial court's judgment was contrary to law. We thus reverse and remand for judgment to be entered in favor of Apple.

[13] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that section 6-1.1-37-10 was amended effective July 1, 2025, to add subsection (f)(7), covering scenarios where payments are submitted by a check processing company. Although that subsection does not apply retroactively to the facts of this case, it would likely support a result in favor of Apple had it been in effect at the time of this dispute.

2.   The Treasurer contends that subsection (h) requires that the payment “still include a postmark” and applies only where such a postmark is not a “ ‘legible correct’ postmark.” Appellee's Br. p. 11. Giving effect to the plain language of the statute, we disagree.

Scheele, Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.