Trustly, Inc., Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Harpravjeet Malhi, Appellee-Defendant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Trustly, Inc. sued Harpravjeet Malhi, alleging nonpayment of a gambling debt. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Malhi after a bench trial. Trustly appeals, claiming that the trial court erroneously allowed Malhi to belatedly assert a defense at trial. Concluding that Trustly has failed to prove reversible error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Trustly facilitates bank payments between customers and merchants, including online betting companies (“the betting sites”). It allows customers of the betting sites to link their betting accounts with their bank accounts. Once a customer connects the two accounts, Trustly coordinates payments from the bank account to the betting sites. If a customer fails to pay a betting site after losing bets, then Trustly pays the betting company itself and follows up with the customer to recoup the payment.

[3] From late November to early December 2023, a person used a betting site account that was linked with Malhi's bank account to make several unsuccessful wagers, accruing $24,877 in liability. The betting site, through Trustly, took payment from Malhi's bank account. When Malhi became aware of the payment to the betting site, he contacted his bank to dispute it. The bank ultimately credited his account for the payment and closed the account.

[4] In August 2025, Trustly sued Malhi to collect on the gambling debt.¹ Malhi filed an answer to Trustly's complaint. The trial court presided over a bench trial. During the trial, Malhi testified that he had neither made nor authorized the bets. The court issued an order stating that “[Trustly] has not met their burden of proof in this matter.” Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 16. The court entered judgment in favor of Malhi, and this appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Trustly challenges the trial court's judgment in favor of Malhi. When a party has the burden of proof, and an adverse judgment is entered, the party is appealing from a negative judgment. In re Adoption of J.S.S., 61 N.E.3d 394, 397 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “A party appealing from a negative judgment must show that the evidence points unerringly to a conclusion different than that reached by the trial court.” Sri Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan of Tri State, Inc. v. Farmers State Bank of Alto Pass, Ill., 194 N.E.3d 55, 59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, together with all of the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Stoffel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 3 N.E.3d 548, 552-53 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

[6] Cases involving appeals from negative judgments also state that the appellant must show that the judgment is “contrary to law.” Id. at 552. If the undisputed evidence entitles the one who has the burden of proof to a judgment which has been denied him, such judgment is contrary to law. Hinds v. McNair, 129 N.E.2d 553, 558 (Ind. 1955).

[7] We also note that Malhi has not filed an appellee's brief. Under these circumstances, we may reverse if Trustly demonstrates prima facie error. Charles v. Vest, 90 N.E.3d 667, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Prima facie error” is error at first sight, at first appearance, or on the face of it. Id.

[8] Trustly states that its claim against Malhi is based on a breach of contract. Appellant's Br. p. 9. To prevail on its claim, Trustly was obligated to prove, among other elements, that Malhi had incurred the debt and failed to pay. See Williams v. Unifund CCR, 70 N.E.3d 375, 377-78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (stating that in action for breach of contract, amount stated, and other claims, plaintiff had to show that defendant owed debt); Seth v. Midland Funding, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1139, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (stating that plaintiff seeking payment for unpaid credit card debt had to show that defendant “owed ․ the amount alleged in the complaint”).

[9] Trustly argues that while Malhi claimed at trial that someone else used his gambling account and bank account to place the bets, Malhi never alleged fraud as a defense in his answer to the complaint. Trustly therefore alleges that Malhi should not have been allowed to present evidence on this defense at trial.

[10] We disagree. Malhi's defense pertained to the core question of proof of identity—who made the bets and then failed to pay—rather than an affirmative defense of fraud. Malhi testified that he did not make the bets or authorize anyone else to make the bets on his behalf. He also presented bank statements showing that his bank had credited his account for the unauthorized payments to the betting company.

[11] As noted, Trustly bore the burden of proving Malhi breached the contract. And, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, the trial court found and the evidence supports that Malhi did not make the bets and did not incur a debt to Trustly. See Eden United, Inc. v. Short, 573 N.E.2d 920, 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (reversing judgment against defendant IMG for breach of contract; evidence at trial failed to show IMG was party to transaction, and IMG could not be held liable for breach), trans. denied.

[12] Under these circumstances, Malhi was not attempting to belatedly present a fraud defense at trial, and the trial court did not err in admitting Malhi's testimony and bank statements into evidence. Trustly has not demonstrated that the trial court's judgment is contrary to law or prima facie erroneous.

Conclusion

[13] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Trustly did not include its civil complaint in its Appellant's Appendix.

Crone, Senior Judge.

May, J., and Altice, J., concur.