LTL TRUCK SERVICE, LLC v. Safeguard, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 November 2004
• Docket Number: No. 45A03-0403-CV-142.,45A03-0403-CV-142.
• Citation: 817 N.E.2d 664
• Parties: LTL TRUCK SERVICE, LLC, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. SAFEGUARD, INC. d/b/a Maggart & Sons, Inc. and Maggart & Sons, Inc. d/b/a M & S Xpress, Appellees-Defendants.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

817 N.E.2d 664

LTL TRUCK SERVICE, LLC, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. SAFEGUARD, INC. d/b/a Maggart & Sons, Inc. and Maggart & Sons, Inc. d/b/a M & S Xpress, Appellees-Defendants.

No. 45A03-0403-CV-142.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

November 17, 2004.

Edward R. Hall, Merrillville, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Charles P. Rice, R. John Kuehn, Boveri Murphy Rice & LaDue, South Bend, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

NAJAM, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

LTL Truck Service, LLC ("LTL") appeals the trial court's dismissal of one plenary action and eight small claims against Safeguard, Inc. d/b/a Maggart & Sons, Inc. and Maggart & Sons, Inc. d/b/a/ M & S Express (together "Safeguard"). LTL presents the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred when it granted Safeguard's motion for involuntary dismissal of LTL's eight small claims actions.

2. Whether the trial court erred when it granted Safeguard's motion to dismiss LTL's plenary action under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(8).¹

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

LTL provides truck repair services. Timothy Majtyka is the president of LTL, and his wife Kim is the bookkeeper. LTL has made repairs to several trucks operated by Safeguard. Over some period of time, LTL allegedly provided approximately $17,000 in services and repairs to Safeguard's trucks for which Safeguard never paid. Safeguard also allegedly stopped payment on a check it had sent to LTL for certain repairs.

On July 30, 2002, LTL filed an action against Safeguard in the Small Claims Division of the Lake Superior Court ("Small Claims No. 3433"). On October 28, 2002, LTL filed seven additional small claims actions against Safeguard ("Small Claims Nos. 4737, 4738, 4739, 4740, 4741, 4742, 4743"). Each small claims action involved multiple invoices related to services LTL had provided to Safeguard. However, each small claims action claimed damages in an amount less than $3,000.

Three days after LTL filed the seven small claims actions, it filed its Complaint for Damages against Safeguard on the plenary docket of the Lake Superior Court. LTL's plenary action involved the same four invoices at issue in Small Claim No. 4739, but also alleged a claim for check deception under Indiana Code Section 34-24-3-1.

In November 2002, the trial court consolidated the eight small claims actions for purposes of discovery. The court then scheduled trial on the plenary action and the eight small claims actions for September 9, 2003. The parties were prepared to try the plenary action first, and then proceed to the small claims actions.

The morning of trial on the plenary action, Safeguard moved to dismiss LTL's complaint under Trial Rule 12(B)(8). Safeguard argued that the same case was pending on the small claims docket and, thus, the plenary action, which LTL filed last in time, should be dismissed with prejudice. LTL responded in part that: (1) it had already filed a voluntary motion to dismiss Small Claim No. 4739, which it conceded involved the same invoices as the plenary action; and (2) its plenary action alleged a violation of statutory rights, which distinguished it from Small Claim No. 4739. The trial court granted Safeguard's motion and dismissed LTL's plenary action with prejudice.

The parties then proceeded to trial on LTL's small claims actions. LTL presented testimony from three witnesses, including Timothy and Kim Majtyka. LTL also submitted over 150 pages of documentary evidence, including several invoices. After LTL concluded its case, Safeguard moved for an involuntary dismissal under Trial Rule 41(B), alleging LTL had failed to offer evidence of the amount of damages related to each of the eight small claims actions. In its initial response to Safeguard's motion, the trial court addressed LTL's counsel and stated in part:

[T]his is one that I've seen coming for about an hour. How can the Court link these invoices up to each specific cause number[?] ... Forget the rules of evidence. Forget the rules of procedure. Let's just talk good old fashioned substantive preponderance of the evidence. How can I make a ruling on any given cause number here and not have it be completely speculative with regard to which evidence I'm going to designate to which cause number.

Transcript at 246-47. At that point, LTL moved to present additional evidence on the issue of damages. Safeguard objected, and the trial court then explained:

The law doesn't allow me over objection to allow you to put that piece of paper in now that you've rested. The prejudice here is pretty simple. If I would allow you to re-open I would then be forced to make the defendant put a case on. If I allow that not to go into evidence, the matter is over right now. I can't imagine the Court of Appeals would even issue an opinion other than the word[ ] reversed if I were to allow that in right now. Unless there's some other thing you can guide me with.

Id. at 247-48. The court then ordered a brief recess to give LTL an opportunity to consider Safeguard's motion.

After the proceedings reconvened, LTL asserted that the court had sufficient information before it to determine damages. Essentially, LTL argued that based on a review of each small claims complaint, it was possible to determine which invoices matched which complaint because each complaint alleged a specific dollar amount. At that point, Safeguard stated that it had received copies of complaints which contained identical amounts of claimed damages, namely, $767.29.² LTL then asserted that the damages determination was a "ministerial issue[,]" not an evidentiary issue. Id. at 269.

After lengthy argument, the trial court agreed with Safeguard and dismissed LTL's eight small claims on two grounds. First, the court determined that because LTL had failed to present evidence matching each invoice to a particular small claims action, the court was left to speculate regarding damages. Second, the court concluded that it had "no choice but to accept the $767.00 dollar amount for each Complaint, and if so, [LTL's] mathematical argument would fail." Id. at 271. The court later issued a written order granting Safeguard's motion for involuntary dismissal and entering judgment for Safeguard and against LTL.

Thereafter, LTL filed a Motion to Correct Error under Indiana Trial Rule 59(H), which the trial court denied. LTL then filed an amended motion, wherein it identified which invoices related to each particular small claims complaint. Following a hearing, the trial court denied LTL's motion. This appeal ensued.

Issue One: Small Claims Actions

LTL first contends that the trial court erred when it involuntarily dismissed its eight small claims actions and entered judgment in Safeguard's favor. In particular, LTL asserts that the trial court erred when it: (1) concluded that LTL failed to prove its damages for each claim; (2) dismissed LTL's actions under Trial Rule 41(B); and (3) refused to consider the evidence of damages LTL presented in its motion to correct error. We address those arguments in turn.

LTL had the burden of proof at trial on each of its small claims actions. Accordingly, we apply a negative judgment standard of review. Cf. City of Dunkirk Water and Sewage Dept. v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115, 116 (Ind.1995)

(setting forth standard of review on appeal from small claims action where plaintiffs-appellees prevailed in small claims court). On appeal, we will not reverse a negative judgment unless it is contrary to law. Stroud v. Lints, 760 N.E.2d 1176, 1187 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (citing Comm'r, Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt. v. RLG, Inc., 755 N.E.2d 556, 559 (Ind.2001)). To determine whether the judgment is contrary to law, we consider the "evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, together with all the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom." Hinojosa v. Board of Public Works & Safety, 789 N.E.2d 533, 542 (Ind.Ct.App.2003),

trans. denied. A "judgment will be reversed only if the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial court reached the opposite conclusion." Id.

A. Evidence of Damages

The trial court granted Safeguard's motion for involuntary dismissal because LTL failed to present evidence showing which particular invoices were related to each of its eight small claims actions. LTL claims that the dismissal was error because small claims actions are informal, the trial court found that LTL had otherwise proven its claims against Safeguard, and the determination of damages is a ministerial function, not an evidentiary one.

We agree with LTL that the trial of a small claims action "`shall be informal, with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law.'" Mayflower Transit, Inc. v. Davenport, 714 N.E.2d 794, 797 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (quoting Ind. Small Claims Rule 8(A) and City of Dunkirk, 657 N.E.2d at 116). Nevertheless, the parties in a small claims court bear the same burdens of proof as they would in a regular civil action on the same issues. Id. (citing Ind. Small Claims Rule 4(A)). While the method of proof may be informal, the relaxation of evidentiary rules is not the equivalent of relaxation of the burden of proof. Id. It is incumbent upon the party who bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is entitled to the recovery sought. Id. And as Safeguard points out, the burden of proof with respect to damages is with the plaintiff. See Noble Roman's, Inc. v. Ward, 760 N.E.2d 1132, 1140 (Ind.Ct.App.2002)

. Further, a fact finder may not award damages on the mere basis of conjecture or speculation. Id.

We reject LTL's contention that once the trial court determined that Safeguard owed LTL money, it had no burden to prove its damages in each individual small claims action. See Brief of Appellant at 12 ("The fact that LTL neglected to match the invoices to the complaints is irrelevant per the small claims rules."). As the plaintiff, LTL had the burden of proving its damages, and...