Antonio Trujillo v. Bernard J. Vodde (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 11, 2016
• Docket: 02A03-1601-SC-45
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Aug 11 2016, 9:56 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK Indiana Supreme Court regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals and Tax Court court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Anthony S. Churchward R. David Boyer Anthony S. Churchward, P.C. Boyer & Boyer Fort Wayne, Indiana Fort Wayne, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Antonio Trujillo, August 11, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No. 02A03-1601-SC-45 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court Bernard J. Vodde, The Honorable Brian D. Cook, Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 02D09-1508-SC-12882

Barnes, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-SC-45 | August 11, 2016 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Antonio Trujillo appeals a judgment against him for $5,000.00 in favor of

Bernard Vodde. We reverse.

Issue [2] The sole issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the

judgment.

Facts [3] On August 1, 2015, Vodde was on the front porch of his home in Fort Wayne

when three boys approached him and began talking to him. Vodde recognized

only one of the boys, sixteen-year-old K.T., who is Trujillo’s son. Vodde and

his wife offered the boys a drink and talked to them about various items in

Vodde’s garage. During the conversation, one or two of the boys left the garage

and then came back. Vodde never saw any of the boys enter his house. After

the boys left, Vodde went inside his house and noticed a number of items

missing, including a wallet, a handgun, some food and beverages, and a large

amount of jewelry. Later, one of the boys, whom Vodde did not identify,

returned Vodde’s wallet to him, missing the credit cards and cash it had

contained.

[4] Police detained K.T. and questioned him regarding the missing property from

Vodde’s home. K.T. denied ever entering Vodde’s home or taking any property

from him, and he refused to identify the two boys who were with him.

Eventually, K.T. was alleged to have committed disorderly conduct, based on Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-SC-45 | August 11, 2016 Page 2 of 6 his conduct while being detained by the police, and he was found to be

delinquent for committing that offense.

[5] On August 17, 2015, Vodde filed an action in small claims court against

Trujillo, alleging K.T. was involved in the theft of items from his home and

seeking to hold Trujillo liable for K.T.’s conduct. The small claims court

conducted a bench trial on November 12, 2015. Afterwards, the court entered

judgment in favor of Vodde for $5,000.00. Trujillo now appeals and has

obtained a certified statement of the evidence pursuant to Indiana Appellate

Rule 31 because no transcript of the trial was available.

Analysis [6] Trujillo contends there is insufficient evidence that his son K.T. was in any way

involved with the theft of items from Vodde’s home. “Judgments in small

claims actions are ‘subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and

statutes.’” Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1067 (Ind. 2006)

(quoting Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A)). Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A),

we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review to facts determined in a

bench trial with due regard given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess

witness credibility. Id. “This ‘deferential standard of review is particularly

important in small claims actions, where trials are “informal, with the sole

objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules

of substantive law.”’” Id. at 1067-68 (quoting City of Dunkirk Water & Sewage

Dep’t v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115, 116 (Ind. 1995) (in turn quoting S.C.R. 8(A)).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-SC-45 | August 11, 2016 Page 3 of 6 [7] “A person who has suffered a pecuniary loss as a result of a criminal conversion

may bring a civil action to recover the loss, and in such a civil action must

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the

criminal act.” Schrenker v. State, 919 N.E.2d 1188, 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010),

trans. denied. However, while mens rea must be proven in a criminal case, it

need not be in a civil case. Id. at 1194.

Conversion, as a tort, is the appropriation of the personal property of another to the party’s own use and benefit, or in its destruction, or in exercising dominion over it, in exclusion and defiance of the rights of the owner or lawful possessor, or in withholding it from his possession, under a claim and title inconsistent with the owner’s.

Id.

[8] A tort claim cannot be proven solely by inferential speculation. Colen v. Pride

Vending Serv., 654 N.E.2d 1159, 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied.

“Testimony based on conjecture or speculation is insufficient to support a

claim.” Id. Evidence fails as a matter of law to support a claim if an intended

inference rests on no more than speculation or conjecture and the intended

interference cannot reasonably and logically be drawn from the evidence. Id.

[9] Here, Vodde admitted during his testimony that he never saw any of the three

boys he was talking to on August 1, 2015, enter his home. He did state that one

of the three boys later returned his wallet to him, emptied of cash and credit

cards, but he did not identify which boy it was or whether it was K.T. There is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-SC-45 | August 11, 2016 Page 4 of 6 no evidence K.T. ever confessed to being involved with the theft of Vodde’s

property or that anyone else ever implicated K.T. in the theft.

[10] Vodde suggests that K.T. was arrested for theft and that he “accepted a plea

related to his disorderly conduct.” Appellee’s Br. p. 7. The record before us, as

reflected in the certified statement of the evidence, does not indicate that K.T.

ever was arrested for theft, as opposed to merely being suspected of and

questioned about it by police; there likewise is no evidence that K.T. pled guilty

to disorderly conduct in order to avoid prosecution for theft. Additionally,

Vodde argues that “no other person” could possibly bear responsibility for the

theft and that if Trujillo wants to avoid the judgment, K.T. should name the

other two boys he was with at Vodde’s house. Id. at 8. Vodde cites no

authority for the proposition that a civil judgment can or should be used as

leverage to force a criminal suspect to talk to authorities, regardless of whether

there is evidence to support such a judgment.

[11] It is possible to speculate that K.T. was involved in the theft of items from

Vodde’s home. But speculation and conjecture alone are not enough to support

a judgment. The most the evidence demonstrates is that K.T. was present

outside Vodde’s home near in time to the theft of the items, while in the

company of two unidentified boys, and that a boy later returned Vodde’s empty

wallet to him but Vodde did not identify who that boy was. As a matter of law,

this fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that K.T. was involved in

the theft of Vodde’s property.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-SC-45 | August 11, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Conclusion [12] The small claims court’s judgment that Trujillo is liable to Vodde for his son

K.T.’s purported theft of Vodde’s property is clearly erroneous. We reverse the

judgment in Vodde’s favor.

[13] Reversed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1601-SC-45 | August 11, 2016 Page 6 of 6