Doulos Chapel v. Frank Williams Construction (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 5, 2019
• Docket: 18A-SC-721
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 05 2019, 9:17 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE Doulos Chapel South Bend, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Doulos Chapel, February 5, 2019 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-SC-721 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court Frank Williams Construction, The Honorable Paul E. Singleton, Appellee-Defendant Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 71D03-1801-SC-232

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-721 | February 5, 2019 Page 1 of 3 [1] Doulos Chapel (Doulos) appeals the trial court’s order entering judgment in

favor of Frank Williams Construction (Williams) on Doulos’s small claims

complaint. Doulos argues that the trial court was biased against it. Finding

zero evidence of bias, we affirm.

[2] Doulos retained Williams to perform certain construction work in its facility.

The parties entered into a contract, pursuant to which Doulos would pay

Williams $1,700 for the work. Doulos made a down payment of $1,000 to

Williams for the various tasks; the parties dispute how much work was actually

performed.

[3] On January 17, 2018, Doulos filed a small claims action against Williams,

alleging that he had not performed the work as requested and demanding the

return of $1,000. An evidentiary hearing took place on February 23, 2018, at

which Frank Williams (owner of Williams) and Mario Sims (pastor of Doulos)

testified. That same day, the trial court issued an order entering judgment in

favor of Williams. Doulos now appeals.

[4] Doulos’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court was biased against it.

The only evidence to which Doulos cites in support of this argument is the trial

court’s decision to admit evidence offered by Williams. It is well established

that an adverse ruling alone is insufficient to show bias or prejudice. E.g.,

Flowers v. State, 738 N.E.2d 1051, 1060 n.4 (Ind. 2000). Moreover, although

Doulos does not attempt to argue that the ruling itself was erroneous, we note

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-721 | February 5, 2019 Page 2 of 3 that small claims proceedings are informal in nature and are not bound by the

rules of evidence. Ind. Small Claims Rule 8(A).

[5] Having read the transcript, we see not even a scintilla of evidence that the trial

court was in any way biased against Doulos. Therefore, we affirm.1

[6] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

1 Although Doulos does not argue that the evidence did not support the trial court’s order, we note that the trial court had before it the testimony of Doulos’s witnesses and Williams’s witnesses as well as documents presented by both sides. It was for the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the claims made by both parties. It found Williams more persuasive than Doulos, and we will not second-guess that determination.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-721 | February 5, 2019 Page 3 of 3