Griffin v. Martin
| Decision Date | 15 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 80A02–1407–SC–495.,80A02–1407–SC–495. |
| Citation | 38 N.E.3d 225 (Table) |
| Parties | Jeff GRIFFIN, d/b/a JDA Trailers, Appellant–Defendant, v. Dennis MARTIN and Lisa Martin, Appellees–Plaintiffs. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
C. Melissa Cunnyngham, Church Church Hittle & Antrim, Tipton, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
[1] Jeff Griffin, d/b/a JDA Trailers, appeals from the judgment of the small claims court against him and in favor of Dennis and Lisa Martin in the amount of $1,896.62 for the costs of repairs to a vehicle Griffin sold the Martins plus attorney fees. Griffin raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the small claims court erred in ordering him to pay the costs incurred by the Martins to repair the vehicle he had sold them “as-is” and with no warranty. We reverse.
[2] On September 5, 2013, the Martins purchased a 2001 Chevy Silverado from Griffin at his used car dealership in Windfall, Indiana. Dennis Martin signed a Used Vehicle Order indicating the car's sales price was $10,000, and the handwritten words “as-is” were written in the area for “Remarks” on the document. Appellant's Appendix at 18. Dennis also signed a “Buyer's Guide,” and the box next to the words “AS IS–NO WARRANTY” was marked. Id. at 20. Under the box, the document provided: Id.
[3] While driving the vehicle home, the Martins were able to stop the vehicle only by using the brakes on the trailer being pulled by the vehicle. The vehicle was inspected by two independent mechanics who found the pads and rotors were severely grooved with pieces of metal missing, and the hubs were worn on the front of the vehicle. The Martins incurred expenses of $1,196.62 to make repairs.
[4] On February 5, 2014, the Martins filed a Notice of Claim requesting damages in the amount of $1,081.12 plus attorney fees of $700 and court costs, and they alleged that the vehicle they purchased from Griffin “was not road worthy in that it had defective/non-existent brakes.” Id. at 10. The court held a hearing on April 25, 2014, at which the parties presented testimony and evidence. The Martins presented evidence of an invoice and receipt from Paul–Richard GM Center, two receipts from NAPA Auto Parts, invoices from Car Recyclers and Jim's Garage, and a summary of services and costs of vehicle repair and diagnosis by Thomas Nelson.
[5] The Martins testified that Griffin sold them a vehicle that was dangerous for them to drive and that at some point after the time of sale they were able to stop the vehicle only by using the brakes on the camper being pulled by the vehicle at the time. They stated that they drove the vehicle to the Paul–Richard GM Center dealership for inspection on September 6, 2013, and that the “[s]uggested repairs ... included re-hooking up the ABS, replacing front hubs, and advising that fuel ‘modles' were bad.” Id. at 26. The Martins indicated they did not have the repairs completed at the dealership but paid for the cost of the inspection. They presented further testimony that they then drove the vehicle to Nelson for inspection and repair on September 7, 2013. Nelson testified that “the vehicle was not roadworthy,” and his written summary stated that the vehicle's bearings were bad in both front hubs which triggered the ABS sensor inside the vehicle, the right hub/bearing was worn to the point of nearseparation, new front brake pads had been installed at some point without replacing severely grooved rotors, the rotors had chunks of metal missing from the rotor surfaces, all four shocks were severely rusted and worn out, and that the fuel level sensor unit was not working properly. Id. The Martins submitted evidence that they paid Nelson for the repairs, Napa Auto for parts, and Car Recyclers and Jim's Garage for parts and repair in November 2013.
[6] Griffin introduced the Used Vehicle Order and Buyer's Guide and testified that he obtained the Silverado from Dellen Chrysler in Greenfield on July 26, 2013. Tim Phifer, an employee of Griffin, testified that he drove the vehicle to Windfall, where it was placed in the back of the lot, and that a few weeks later Dennis Martin expressed an interest in the vehicle and a camper. He testified that Griffin stated to Dennis that the vehicle had not been serviced since its acquisition, that Dennis test-drove the vehicle and asked about the ABS light which was on, that Griffin stated it could be due to the fact the vehicle may need a new front wheel bearing, that Dennis responded by saying that he would take care of whatever was causing the ABS light to be on, and that Dennis did not mention anything further about how the vehicle drove. Phifer further testified that the parties came to an agreement on price with the understanding that the sale would include no warranty, the vehicle was then placed on the back lot, and Griffin performed no further service or inspection. Phifer stated that the Martins returned on September 5, 2013, executed the sales agreement and Buyer's Guide, paid the agreed-upon price, and drove the truck off the lot while towing the camper. On cross-examination, Phifer testified that, between the time the Martins took possession of the vehicle on September 5, 2013, and the time it was inspected by their mechanic on September 6, 2013, the vehicle had been driven 201 miles by the Martins. He also testified that Griffin encourages buyers to have a vehicle inspected prior to a sale. The Martins' counsel stated that they agreed they bought the vehicle with no warranty but that they were bringing their claim under “civil tort law.” Id. at 29. The court took the matter under advisement.
[7] On June 20, 2014, the court entered an order finding that the Martins had purchased the 2001 Chevy Silverado from Griffin on September 5, 2013; that Griffin “sold the vehicle ‘as is' with no warranty”; that while driving home the Martins “discovered the vehicle was not road worthy and were only able to stop the vehicle by using the brakes on the trailer being pulled by the vehicle”; and that the vehicle was subsequently inspected by two separate and independent mechanics who both found the pads and rotors were severely grooved with pieces of metal missing and the hubs were found to be so worn on the front of the vehicle the right hub bearing was at the point of separation. Id. at 7. The court also found that the Martins incurred costs of $1,196.62 “to make the vehicle road worthy” and $700 in attorney fees. Id. The court's ultimate finding was that Griffin “committed a tort against the [Martins] by selling a vehicle that was not road worthy and placed them in danger, as well as any other individuals on the road” and that, “because of [Griffin's] tort, [he] is liable to the [Martins] for their reasonable expenses in repairing the vehicle as well as their reasonable attorney fees.” Id. at 8. The court entered judgment in favor of the Martins and against Griffin in the amount of $1,196.62 for costs and $700 for attorney fees.
[8] The issue is whether the court erred in finding Griffin liable for the Martins' costs of repair of the vehicle he sold them “as-is” and with no warranty. The Martins did not file an appellee's brief. When an appellee fails to submit a brief, we do not undertake the burden of developing his arguments, and we apply a less stringent standard of review, that is, we may reverse if the appellant establishes prima facie error. Zoller v. Zoller, 858 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). This rule was established so that we might be relieved of the burden of controverting the arguments advanced in favor of reversal where that burden properly rests with the appellee. Wright v. Wright, 782 N.E.2d 363, 366 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). Questions of law are still reviewed de novo, however. McClure v. Cooper, 893 N.E.2d 337, 339 (Ind.Ct.App.2008).
[9] Judgments in small claims actions are subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes. Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A) ; Eagle Aircraft, Inc. v. Trojnar, 983 N.E.2d 648, 657 (Ind.Ct.App.2013). 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) ; Eagle Aircraft, 983 N.E.2d at 657. 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. Eagle Aircraft, 983 N.E.2d at 657. A judgment in favor of a party having the burden of proof will be affirmed if the evidence was such that from it a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the elements of the party's claim were established by a preponderance of evidence. Id. This deferential standard of review is particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are informal, with the sole objective of...
To continue reading
Request your trial