Adams v. Stavropoulos

• Decision Date: 03 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 71A04–1507–SC–867.,71A04–1507–SC–867.
• Citation: 49 N.E.3d 196 (Table)
• Parties: Elaine ADAMS, Appellant–Defendant, v. Heather STAVROPOULOS, Appellee–Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

49 N.E.3d 196 (Table)

Elaine ADAMS, Appellant–Defendant
v.
Heather STAVROPOULOS, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 71A04–1507–SC–867.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

March 3, 2016.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] In September of 2013, Appellee–Plaintiff Heather Stavropoulos purchased a puppy from Appellant–Defendant Elaine Adams. According to the terms of the contract for the sale of the puppy, Adams warranted that the puppy was being sold in “good condition” and would not suffer from hip dysplasia before reaching the age of four. However, nearly immediately after the purchase of the puppy was completed, Stavropoulos discovered that the puppy suffered from environmental and food allergies which stemmed from an autoimmune disease. In addition, when the puppy was just fourteen months old, it was diagnosed with hip dysplasia. After receiving these diagnoses, Stavropoulos brought the instant action against Adams alleging a breach of the warranties contained in the parties' contract. After finding that breaches of said warranties had occurred, the small claims court entered a $3286.26 judgment against Adams.

[2] On appeal, Adams challenges the $3286.26 judgment, claiming that the small claims court erred by ordering her to refund the $1700.00 purchase price of the puppy to Stavropoulos without also requiring Stavropoulos to return the puppy to Adams. Adams also claims that the small claims court erred by ordering her to pay damages relating to certain expenses incurred by Stavropoulos as a result of the puppy's allergies. Finding no error by the small claims court, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On September 4, 2013, the parties entered into a contract under the terms of which Stavropoulos agreed to purchase a Doberman Pinscher puppy (hereinafter, the “puppy”) from Adams for the sum of $1700.00. The portion of the parties' contract which is relevant to the instant matter provides as follows:

3. Puppy is being sold in good condition with current shots, and wormings. Puppy is guaranteed against hip d[y]splasia and cardio for 4 years. If either were to occur seller has option of replacement or refund of the purchase price.

Appellant's App. p. 17.

[4] Almost immediately after bringing the puppy home, Stavropoulos noticed that the puppy seemed to be suffering from some health issues. Specifically, the puppy would vomit, would not eat “after a certain timeframe,” and broke out in hives on multiple occasions. Tr. p. 5. After multiple visits to the veterinarian and the completion of multiple tests, it was determined that the puppy suffered from environmental and food allergies which fell under “an umbrella of an autoimmune disease.” Tr. p. 7. This diagnosis resulted in the need for the puppy to undergo additional veterinary care and for Stavropoulos to purchase special food, medications, and supplements for the puppy.

[5] In addition to the above-described allergy issues, when the puppy was approximately three months old, Stavropoulos began hearing a “popping” sound coming from the puppy's hips. Tr. p. 19. When these popping sounds continued, Stavropoulos became concerned about the possibility that the puppy was suffering from hip dysplasia. When the puppy was approximately fourteen months old, it was diagnosed with hip dysplasia. This diagnosis was subsequently confirmed by a second veterinarian.

[6] On December 29, 2014, Stavropoulos filed an action in the small claims court against Adams seeking $5000.00 in damages relating to the puppy's hip dysplasia diagnosis and the costs associated with the puppy's other medical ailments. Although Adams claimed during an April 14, 2015 trial, that she “would do anything if she could have helped” Stavropoulos with any issues Stavropoulos experienced with the puppy, nothing in the record indicates that Adams offered to replace the puppy prior to the date that Stavropoulos initiated the instant law suit. Tr. p. 62. In addition, Adams testified that she believes that, at the age of fourteen months, the puppy was too young to be diagnosed with hip dysplasia but would be happy to take the puppy back and refund the $1700.00 purchase price if the puppy was diagnosed with hip dysplasia after reaching its second birthday.

[7] Following the conclusion of the April 14, 2015 trial, the small claims court determined that there had been a breach of the warranties that the puppy was sold in good condition and that it would not suffer from hip dysplasia before the age of four. After reaching this determination, the small claims court entered a $3286.26 judgment against Adams. Adams subsequently filed a motion to correct error, which was denied by the small claims court on June 12, 2015. This appeal follows.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Adams appeals the judgment of the small claims court following the denial of her motion to correct error.

Judgments in small claims actions are “subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes.” Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A). In the appellate review of claims tried by the bench without a jury, the reviewing court shall not set aside the judgment “unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). In determining whether a judgment is clearly erroneous, the appellate tribunal does not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses but considers only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. See Estate of Reasor v. Putnam County (1994), Ind., 635 N.E.2d 153, 158 ; In re Estate of Banko (1993), Ind., 622 N.E.2d 476, 481. A judgment in favor of a party having the burden of proof will be affirmed if the evidence was such that

...