Rong Fan v. Summerlakes Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 29A05–1405–PL–219.,29A05–1405–PL–219. |
| Citation | 26 N.E.3d 1075 (Table) |
| Parties | Rong FAN, Appellant–Defendant, v. SUMMERLAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rong Fan Carmel, IN, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard R. Skiles, Skiles Detrude, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for appellee.
FRIEDLANDER
, Judge.
[1] Rong Fan, pro se, appeals an injunction entered against him and in favor of Summerlakes Property Owners Association, Inc. (the HOA). Fan presents the following consolidated and restated issues for review:
[2] The HOA asks that we affirm the trial court's order and remand for a determination and award of the attorney fees it has incurred defending Fan's appeal.
[3] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
[4] Fan is a homeowner in the Summerlakes residential subdivision in Hamilton County. This subdivision is governed by the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions of Summerlakes (the Declaration), which was recorded in 1986 and is administered and enforced by the HOA. Armour Property Management, LLC (APM) provides property management services for the HOA. Over recent years, the relationship between Fan and the HOA had been contentious.
[5] On January 13, 2014, Cindy Armour of APM observed and photographed several wooden pallets propped against a tree in Fan's front yard. She sent an email to Fan the following day, asking that he move the pallets out of public view that evening. Fan took the pallets to his backyard and propped them against another tree. On January 28, Armour photographed the pallets, which were still visible from the road and/or the neighbor's driveway. The HOA filed an injunction action against Fan that same day, seeking Fan's compliance with certain covenants and restrictions contained in the Declaration. The complaint provided in part:
[8] The HOA alleged that the pallets on Fan's lot violated these provisions of the Declaration.
[9] On at least two occasions over the next month, Fan contacted the HOA's attorney and requested dismissal of the lawsuit, claiming it was meritless.1 Counsel, however, continued to request removal of the pallets from Fan's yard. In a February 24 email, Fan vowed to fight the HOA as he had in the past. The pallets remained in Fan's backyard2 and were observed and/or photographed on February 5, 17, and 25, as well as on the day of the injunction hearing.
[10] At the evidentiary hearing on March 7, Fan did not deny that the pallets had remained outside on his lot since January 13. Instead, he attempted to establish that the pallets had been moved to a far corner of his large backyard that was not visible from the street. He also indicated that the pallets might be used in the future by his daughter for an art project. Fan testified that he believed the lawsuit was unfair and that if Armour would have simply called him, he would have complied “right away”. Transcript at 64. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement and directed the parties to file proposed orders within seven days.
[11] On March 21, 2014, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions thereon, granting a permanent injunction against Fan. The court ordered Fan to “immediately remove the wooden pallets and any and all the out-of-doors refuse and rubbish from the property of the Fan Residence”. Appellant's Appendix at 8. The court also awarded costs and attorney fees in the amount of $5290.52 to the HOA. Following an unsuccessful motion to correct error and motion to reconsider, Fan now appeals.
[12] We begin by observing that our consideration of the merits of this case is significantly hampered by Fan's failure to follow the dictates of our appellate rules and his disregard for the applicable standards of review. For example, his statement of facts section is improperly littered with argument and presents “facts” that were not part of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. See Ind. Appellate Rules 46(A)(6)(b)
(). Most limiting to our review is Fan's argument section, for which he sets out no standard of review and little relevant authority and relies on facts not in evidence. See App. R. 46(A)(8)(a) (); App. R. 46(A)(8)(b) ().
[13] It is well established that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as trained legal counsel and are required to follow procedural rules. See Whatley v. State, 937 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind.Ct.App.2010)
. Our appellate rules are not mere suggestions, and flagrant violations may result in waiver of the issues presented. See
Ramsey v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). “We will not become an advocate for a party, nor will we address arguments which are either inappropriate, too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood.” Terpstra v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 483 N.E.2d 749, 754 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), trans. denied. With this in mind, we proceed to the merits of this case.
[14] The trial court entered special findings of fact and judgment thereon pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 52(A)
. Accordingly, we are tasked on review with determining whether the evidence supports the findings and the findings support the judgment. Bowyer v. Indiana Dep't of Natural Res., 944 N.E.2d 972 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). In deference to the trial court, we will disturb the judgment only where there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. Id. In other words, we will not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility. Id. While we review findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, we review de novo a trial court's conclusions of law. Id.
[15] Ultimately, we will conclude that a judgment is clearly erroneous only if no evidence supports the findings, the findings fail to support the judgment, or the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard. Id. “In order to determine that a finding or conclusion is clearly erroneous, an appellate court's review of the evidence must leave it with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. at 984
().
[16] Fan argues that the trial court erred in granting the injunction because the pallets in his backyard did not amount to a violation of the Declaration. His argument appears to boil down to the following claims: 1) Fan was not given enough time to remove the pallets; 2) the pallets were not left out in public view; and 3) the pallets are not necessarily trash or rubbish.
[17] Article VIII, section 3(H) provides in relevant part:
[18] Appellant's Appendix at 34. Article VIII, section 5(B) further provides in part: “nor shall any such Owner accumulate or permit the accumulation out-of-doors of [ ] refuse on his Lot”. Id. at 37.
[19] The Declaration is clear in that it prohibits the outdoor accumulation of refuse/trash/debris/rubbish on lots in the neighborhood. The trial court's determination that the pallets “constitute debris and rubbish and detract from and diminish the aesthetic appearance of the Fan property” is supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. Id. at 7. In fact, Fan did not seriously dispute the nature of the pallets at the hearing and described them in a pleading as “junk” that he moved out of his front yard. Id. at 87.
[20] Further, Fan's claim that he was not given enough time to remove the pallets from his property is disingenuous. The hearing was held more than fifty days after Fan received Armour's email and over a month after the complaint was filed, yet the pallets remained. The trial court properly observed that Fan presented no evidence at the hearing3 that the pallets could not have been removed timely, and his attempt to submit evidence outside the trial record in support of his appellate argument is improper. Fan also presents no authority in support of his claim that the Declaration was required to “specify the exact time frame for removal of all debris and rubbish.” Appellant's Brief at 10.
[21] In his brief, Fan also attempts to address the “proper interpretation of ‘public view’ “. Id. at 11. He claims that the pallets in question were “extremely small” and “stored far from public view in the deep corner of [his] backyard”. Id. at 10. We refuse Fan's request to reweigh the evidence, which when viewed in a light most...
To continue reading
Request your trial