MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 25 2017, 9:56 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Morris Kelsay
Marion, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Edwin Blinn Jr., May 25, 2017
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
27A05-1701-SC-49
v. Appeal from the Grant Superior
Court
Rachel Marie Fern, The Honorable Warren Haas,
Appellee-Defendant Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
27D03-1609-SC-936
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1701-SC-49 | May 25, 2017 Page 1 of 4
[1] Edwin Blinn, Jr., is a landlord who filed a complaint to evict one of his tenants,
Rachel Marie Fern, for failure to pay rent. The trial court awarded Blinn
possession effective October 3, 2016. After Blinn took possession, his property
manager, Katie Blinn, attempted to re-rent the vacant apartment. She put
weekly ads in the newspaper for three weeks but had not yet found a new tenant
at the time of the damages hearing.
[2] At the October 20, 2016, damages hearing, Blinn requested a continuance
because he had not yet found a new tenant; therefore, he was unable to provide
a final calculation of the previous tenant’s unpaid rent. 1 The trial court
questioned Katie and learned that Blinn owns and rents approximately seventy-
five apartments in the community. Katie also agreed that the vacant apartment
“should go quickly” because it was their only vacant one-bedroom apartment at
that time. Tr. Vol. II p. 6.
[3] The trial court denied the motion to continue the damages hearing for the
following reasons:
Mr. Blinn has many many many apartments, and he has the
ability to put people in apartments. And he chooses which ones
go into which apartments. So, I think it’s unfair for the people
who are getting no benefit what so ever from paying rent to have
very long before the at least the bleeding stops.
1
Fern’s lease expired on December 18, 2016.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1701-SC-49 | May 25, 2017 Page 2 of 4
Id. The trial court awarded damages in the amount of $2,851, which included
past due rent up to the date of the hearing. Blinn filed a motion to correct error,
which the trial court denied, reasoning as follows:
Landlord picks and chooses who occupies one or another of his
75 apartments. He was able to re-rent 4 or 5 of his apartments at
[one location] and another 5 or 6 in his other apartments in the
three weeks prior to October 20, 2016. Landlord would have
little incentive to rent Tenant’s apartment, if he were given 60
additional days, as requested, to re-rent Tenant’s apartment.
Katie Blinn testified that Tenant’s apartment is a one bedroom
unit and should be rented quickly.
Appealed Order p. 2. Blinn now appeals.
[4] We review a small claims court’s judgment for clear error. Bokori v. Martinoski,
70 N.E.3d 441, 443 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A deferential standard of review is
particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are informal, with
the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to
the rules of substantive law. Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 483 (Ind.
2003). Here, the tenant did not file an appellee’s brief, “and thus we may
reverse upon a prima facie showing of reversible error—but even so, we still
may not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility.” Bokori, 70 N.E.3d at
444.
[5] After an eviction or tenant default, “[a] landlord is required to use such
diligence as would be exercised by a reasonably prudent person under similar
circumstances to relet the premises.” Merkor Mgmt. v. McCuan, 728 N.E.2d 209,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1701-SC-49 | May 25, 2017 Page 3 of 4
212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). The trial court here found, based on its assessment of
the evidence and the parties, that if Blinn used reasonable diligence, the
apartment would be re-rented quickly. Indeed, Blinn’s sole witness testified
precisely that. Tr. Vol. II p. 6. The implication underlying the trial court’s
ruling is a conclusion that if Blinn had been given more time, he would not
have used reasonable diligence to find a new tenant. We decline to second-
guess this assessment, as we do not have the benefit of observing the parties or
the witness first hand.
[6] Indiana Small Claims Rule 9(A) states that “[e]ither party may be granted a
continuance for good cause shown.” In this case, the trial court found that
Blinn did not establish good cause. Nothing in this record leads us to believe a
reversal of that decision is warranted.
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1701-SC-49 | May 25, 2017 Page 4 of 4
Edwin Blinn Jr. v. Rachel Marie Fern (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion