Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANTS PRO SE: APPELLEES PRO SE:
MICHAEL BUTLER JERRY HALL
AMANDA BUTLER
Paoli, Indiana
SUSAN HALL
Nashville, Indiana FILED
Aug 27 2012, 9:46 am
CLERK
of the supreme court,
IN THE court of appeals and
tax court
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MICHAEL BUTLER and AMANDA BUTLER, )
)
Appellants-Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) No. 07A01-1111-SC-521
)
JERRY HALL and SUSAN HALL, )
)
Appellees-Defendants. )
APPEAL FROM THE BROWN CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Judith A. Stewart, Judge
The Honorable Douglas E. Van Winkle, Magistrate
Cause No. 07C01-1106-SC-45
August 27, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Michael and Amanda Butler appeal the small claims court’s judgment in favor of Jerry
and Susan Hall. Because the Butlers’ argument is inadequate to demonstrate error, we
affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In August 2008, the Butlers began renting a house from the Halls. At the beginning of
June, 2011, the Butlers contacted the Halls and asked for an extension, until June 8, to pay
the rent due June 1. On June 11, Michael Butler alleged the rental home had been damaged
by a storm, and Jerry Hall visited the home to view the alleged damage. At that meeting,
Jerry told Michael he had until June 13 to pay the rent. After this meeting, the Halls
demanded rent and the Butlers demanded repairs to the home. On June 14, at the Butlers’
request, the Brown County Health Department visited the home. The Health Department
condemned the home, and the Butlers finished moving out on June 20.
Also on June 20, the Butlers filed a small claims action against the Halls, alleging
damages in the form of costs for alternative housing, moving expenses, and loss of personal
property allegedly ruined by the storm damage. The Halls counterclaimed for breach of
lease, unpaid utility bills, and damage to the house. After two hearings, the court denied the
Butlers’ claim for damages, denied the Halls’ claim for property damage, and found for the
Halls on their counterclaim for lost rent up to June 20, fees for late rent payment, and unpaid
utilities. Included in the court’s findings was an explicit finding that “the court believes the
[Butlers] largely staged the alleged water damage and faulty electrical box claims they made
2
to the health department.” (Appellants’ Br.1 at 13.) The court ordered the Butlers to pay $88,
which was the difference between the court’s $938 judgment for the Halls and the Butlers’
$850 security deposit, which was still in the Halls’ possession.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
We begin by noting the inadequacy of the Butlers’ argument on appeal. Our Appellate
Rules state the argument “must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues
presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to
the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on,” Ind.
App. R. 46(A)(8)(a), and it should include “a concise statement of the applicable standard of
review.” App. R. 46(A)(8)(b). Failure to follow our Rules can result in waiver of an appeal
and the issues therein. See Angleton v. Estate of Angleton, 671 N.E.2d 921, 924 n.3 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1996), trans. denied (“Pro se litigants must follow the rules of appellate procedure.”)
The following paragraph is the entirety of the Argument section of the Butlers’ brief:
This is a cut and dry case our rental house got storm damage the
landlord refused to fix it. So the Health Department was called out to the
rental house a determined it was unfit for human habitation. We had to move
out of the house and stay in a hotel because the landlord didn’t fix the house
and the Health Department condemned the house.
(Appellants’ Br. at 10) (errors in original). As the Butlers did not provide a standard of
review or cite relevant law or the Record, their argument does not comply with Appellate
Rule 46(A)(8).
Moreover, that argument is insufficient to permit us to reverse the judgment for the
1
Although the Butlers filed an Appendix, they did not place a copy of the small claims court’s judgment
therein; we therefore cite the copy in their brief.
3
Halls. Our standard of review in small claims cases is particularly deferential in order to
preserve the speedy and informal process for small claims. City of Dunkirk Water & Sewage
Dept. v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115, 116 (Ind. 1995). The small claims court is the sole judge of
the evidence and the credibility of witnesses, and thus, on appeal, we will not reweigh the
evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Id. A plaintiff who seeks damages bears the
burden of proving those damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Eppl v. DiGiacomo,
946 N.E.2d 646, 649 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). If the court rules against the party with the burden
of proof, it enters a negative judgment that we may not reverse for insufficient evidence
unless “the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion, but the court reached
a different conclusion.” Id.
Thus the Butlers, who had the burden of proof on their claim against the Halls, needed
to demonstrate that every piece of evidence presented at trial supported their claim, and no
evidence supported the Halls’ claim. The Butlers’ one paragraph argument, which was
devoid of citation to the Record, was insufficient to demonstrate “the evidence [was] without
conflict” and permitted only a judgment in their favor. See id. (appellate court will not
reweigh evidence). Accordingly, we may not reverse the small claims court’s judgment.
Affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and NAJAM, J., concur.
4