Winters v. Pike

• Decision Date: 08 June 2021
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-PL-27
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: Blake WINTERS and Jamie Winters, Appellants-Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. Kyle PIKE and Mirissa Pike, Appellees-Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants

171 N.E.3d 690

Blake WINTERS and Jamie Winters, Appellants-Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs,

v.Kyle PIKE and Mirissa Pike, Appellees-Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants

Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-PL-27

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED June 8, 2021

Attorney for Appellants: Graham T. Youngs, Steuerwald, Witham & Youngs, LLP, Danville, Indiana

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Blake Winters (Blake) and Jamie Winters (Jamie) appeal a trial court judgment ordering them to release and return certain personal property items to Kyle Pike (Kyle) and Mirissa Pike (Mirissa) and to pay damages for certain unaccounted-for items. They assert that their due process rights were violated and that the trial court's judgment is clearly erroneous. They also challenge the inclusion of Jamie and Mirissa as parties and claim that the damage award is speculative and not supported by the evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] For several years, Kyle repaired cars, trucks, motorcycles, and boat engines in a barn/garage (the Shop) on rural property (the Property) located in Hendricks County. Over his years as a mechanic, he acquired lifts, toolboxes, tools, and other equipment worth more than $100,000. Nicholas Brothers, LLC, owns the Property, which consists of a smaller parcel within a larger one. The smaller parcel includes a residence and the Shop. Nicholas Brothers leased the smaller parcel with the residence and the Shop to Kyle's wife Mirissa and Mirissa's parents, the Millers. For a few years, Kyle and his family lived with the Millers in the residence. In 2017, the Pikes moved out, but the Millers continued to reside there. Meanwhile, Kyle continued to use the Shop to repair various types of vehicles and engines. During this time, he became close friends with fellow motorcycle enthusiast Blake, and they and their wives spent time together socially. When the Millers decided to move out of the residence in 2019, the Winterses leased the smaller parcel that included the residence and the Shop. Kyle and Blake agreed that Kyle could continue to use the Shop for his mechanics business in exchange for $400 per month and lawn mowing services. Kyle retained a key and an access code to the Shop.

[3] In May 2020, Kyle and Blake had a disagreement concerning the purchase and repair of a certain motorcycle. In June 2020, the Winterses came to the Pikes’ residence so that Blake, a gun enthusiast, could show Kyle his new silencer. When Blake walked up the Pikes’ driveway, he noticed that Kyle had purchased a brand new motorcycle. Blake became angry, and an altercation ensued, during which Blake shoved Kyle to the ground and then choked Kyle around the neck. As Blake left, he told Kyle that he was going to sell "all [Kyle's] sh*t" and threatened to shoot Kyle if he came on his property. Tr. Vol. 2 at 67. The Pikes called 911 to report the incident. Meanwhile, Blake texted Kyle, renewing his threat to shoot him if he came on the property. He also sent a text saying that Kyle could have his items back only if he paid him $5000. Blake repeatedly denied the Pikes access to the items inside the Shop, even when the Pikes were accompanied by law enforcement. On July 8, 2020, the Pikes sent the Winterses a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that they not remove or sell any of the items in the Shop and requesting access to the Shop to remove their personal property. The Winterses refused their request and claimed to be acting on the order and advice of landlord Ted Nicholas of Nicholas Brothers.

[4] On July 23, 2020, the Pikes filed a replevin action against the Winterses, seeking injunctive relief, an inspection of the Shop, return of their personal property, and damages for any missing and unaccounted-for property. They attached as Exhibit B an affidavit in support of their request for the contents of the Shop and a list of the items sought in the complaint. The following day, the trial court issued an order to show cause, temporary restraining order, and order to enter and inspect the premises. On July 31, 2020, the trial court conducted an initial emergency hearing and heard argument. The Winterses proceeded pro se. The court ordered that the Pikes be given the opportunity to inspect the Shop, take photographs, and inventory the personal property in it. The court order also specified that the parties were not to remove or sell any of the personal property until a possessory hearing could be held and concluded. The Pikes inspected the Shop and compiled a list of sixty-seven items, including those found in the Shop and those that Kyle had stored there but that now were missing and unaccounted for. Plaintiff's Ex. 2. The list also included an estimated value for each item. The court set a date for a possessory hearing and ordered that Ted Nicholas be present to testify on behalf of Nicholas Brothers.

[5] The possessory hearing was reset a couple times, but the trial court ultimately conducted it on October 14, 2020. The Winterses continued pro se, and the parties presented testimony and exhibits to establish the respective values of the items at issue. Kyle acknowledged that a few of the items had been priced incorrectly or had been recovered and that three of the items belonged to Blake. Blake admitted that the items listed as missing were present in the Shop in June when he first denied Kyle access to it. He denied taking or selling those items and asserted that they had been stolen from the Shop. The trial court took the matter under advisement and gave the Pikes seven days to submit an amended Exhibit 2, with updated values and the appropriate deletions of property no longer subject to claim. On October 21, 2020, the Pikes submitted their amended Exhibit 2 via email.

[6] On October 22, 2020, the court issued sua sponte findings of fact and conclusions thereon, finding that there were six items for which the Pikes failed to meet their burden of proof and three items belonging to the Winterses and that the Pikes were entitled to the return of the remaining items in the Shop and the value of the remaining missing/unaccounted-for items. The court ordered that the Winterses allow the Pikes to retrieve their remaining items from the Shop. It also found the value of the unaccounted-for items to be $26,600 and ordered that the Winterses pay the Pikes this sum, plus any amount determined due and owing after the items were retrieved, to be remitted to them within thirty days after the date that the Pikes submitted their amended exhibit.

[7] The Winterses filed a request for judicial notice of certain public records, i.e., a quitclaim deed and parcel description, pertaining to the smaller parcel, upon which the residence and the Shop were located. The trial court denied their request.¹ They also filed a motion for clarification and a motion to correct error, both of which the trial court denied. The Pikes filed a motion for return of property and a motion to correct error, both of which were denied. The Winterses now appeal. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

Section 1 – The Winterses’ due process rights were not violated.

[8] The Winterses first contend that their due process rights were violated in the proceedings below. At the outset, we note that they chose to proceed pro se during both hearings below. It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. Twin Lakes Reg'l Sewer Dist. v. Teumer , 992 N.E.2d 744, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) ; see also Goossens v. Goossens , 829 N.E.2d 36, 42-43 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (court rejected husband's argument that he was denied due process due to counsel's withdrawal and his unfamiliarity with trial procedure and how to present evidence).

[9] "[T]he fundamental requirement of procedural due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Perdue v. Gargano , 964 N.E.2d 825, 832 (Ind. 2012). In cases involving a due process claim, we look to see whether there has been a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest and then determine what procedural safeguards are required. Melton v. Ind. Athletic Trainers Bd. , 53 N.E.3d 1210, 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The Winterses’ claims essentially amount to an assertion that the trial court violated their due process rights by failing to follow the procedures laid out in Indiana's replevin statute, codified in Indiana Code Chapter 32-35-2. A court's failure to follow statutory requirements can lead to a violation of a person's procedural due process rights. Melton , 53 N.E.3d at 1220. However, we find no such failure here.

[10] "The action of replevin lies, where specific personal property has been wrongfully taken or detained, to recover possession of the property, together with damages for its detention." Replevin , BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) (quoting BENJAMIN J. SHIPMAN , HANDBOOK OF COMMON-LAW PLEADING § 49 at 120 (Henry Winthrop Ballentine ed., 3d ed. 1923)).

To support the action it is necessary: (a) That the property shall be personal. (b) That the plaintiff, at the time of suit, shall be entitled to the immediate possession. (c) That (at common law) the defendant shall have wrongfully taken the property .... But, by statute in most states, the action will now also lie where the property is wrongfully detained, though it was lawfully obtained in the first instance .... (d) That the property shall be wrongfully detained by the defendant at the time of suit.

Id. (quoting SHIPMAN at 120).

[11] Indiana Code Section 32-35-2-1 reads in relevant part, "If any personal goods, including tangible personal property constituting or representing choses in action, are: (1) wrongfully taken or unlawfully detained from the owner or person claiming possession of the property; ... the owner or claimant may bring an action for the possession of the property." (Emphasis added.) The Pikes demanded immediate delivery of the...