Walking w/Jesus Ministries v. Bianca Alexander

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 23, 2024
• Docket: 24A-EV-00419
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana Walking With Jesus Ministries, FILED Appellant-Plaintiff Jul 23 2024, 10:28 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals v. and Tax Court

Bianca Alexander, Appellee-Defendant

July 23, 2024 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-EV-419 Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court The Honorable Matthew R. Raper, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 71D07-2312-EV-2546

Opinion by Judge Mathias Chief Judge Altice and Judge Bailey concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-EV-419 | July 23, 2024 Page 1 of 5 Mathias, Judge.

[1] Walking With Jesus Ministries (“Landlord”) appeals the small claims court’s

dismissal of the Landlord’s notice of claim, in which the Landlord had sought

possession of premises that the Landlord had leased to Alexander, plus

damages the Landlord alleged that Alexander had caused to the premises

during her tenancy. The Landlord raises the following dispositive issue for our

review: whether the court erred when it dismissed the notice of claim due to the

Landlord’s purported failure to give Alexander ten days’ notice under Indiana

Code section 32-31-1-6 (2023). We agree with the Landlord that the ten days’

notice requirement under Indiana Code section 32-31-1-6 does not apply here,

and, accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Beginning on July 1, 2022, the Landlord leased certain premises in Mishawaka

to Alexander pursuant to a written lease agreement. The lease agreement

provided that Alexander’s tenancy was on a month-to-month basis, and her rent

payment was “due in advance before the first (1st) day of each and every

month.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 10. The lease agreement further provided

that, “[i]f rent is not paid by the 1st of each month[,] a $75.00 . . . late fee will be

assessed,” and, “[i]f all monies are not paid in full by the 5th of the month,” the

Landlord would “be compelled to begin the eviction process.” Id. The lease

referred to the five-day window as a “Grace Period” that also “serve[d] as [a]

notice to vacate.” Id. Elsewhere, the lease agreement provided that “no notice

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-EV-419 | July 23, 2024 Page 2 of 5 of default by Landlord is required” should circumstances of Alexander’s default

exist. Id. at 12.

[3] Alexander allegedly failed to pay her rent in accordance with the lease

agreement, and, in December 2023, the Landlord filed its notice of claim

seeking damages against Alexander and possession of the premises. The court

held a hearing on the Landlord’s notice of claim in January 2024. Alexander

did not appear at that hearing. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the

Landlord had failed to provide Alexander with ten days’ notice of the

Landlord’s attempt to terminate the lease in accordance with Indiana Code

section 32-31-1-6. The court then dismissed the Landlord’s notice of claim.

[4] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] The Landlord appeals the small claims court’s dismissal of its notice of claim.

Small claims actions involve informal trials with the sole objective of dispensing

speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law.

Harvey v. Keyed in Prop. Mgmt., LLC, 165 N.E.3d 584, 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021),

trans. denied. Accordingly, judgments from small claims actions are provided a

deferential standard of review. Id. We will neither reweigh the evidence nor

assess witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to

the judgment. Pfledderer v. Pratt, 142 N.E.3d 492, 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

However, this deferential standard relates only to procedural and evidentiary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-EV-419 | July 23, 2024 Page 3 of 5 issues; it does not apply to substantive rules of law, which we review de novo.

Id.

[6] We also note that Alexander has not filed an appellee’s brief. When the

appellee fails to file a brief on appeal, we may reverse the trial court’s decision if

the appellant makes a prima facie showing of reversible error. McGill v. McGill,

801 N.E.2d 1249, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). In this context, prima facie error is

defined as “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Orlich v.

Orlich, 859 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). This rule was established to

make clear that it is not the burden of the court on appeal to rebut apparently

valid arguments advanced for reversing the trial court’s judgment. See McGill,

801 N.E.2d at 1251.

[7] Here, the court dismissed the Landlord’s notice of claim under Indiana Code

section 32-31-1-6, which states:

If a tenant refuses or neglects to pay rent when due, a landlord may terminate the lease with not less than ten (10) days notice to the tenant unless:

(1) the parties otherwise agreed; or

(2) the tenant pays the rent in full before the notice period expires.

(Emphasis added.) And Indiana Code section 32-31-1-8(5) adds that a “[n]otice

is not required to terminate a lease” where “[t]he express terms of the contract

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-EV-419 | July 23, 2024 Page 4 of 5 require the tenant to pay the rent in advance, and the tenant refuses or neglects

to pay the rent in advance.”

[8] The face of the lease agreement makes clear that the statutory ten days’ notice

was not required here. First, the parties agreed otherwise: the lease provided for

a five-day grace period that also expressly “serve[d] as [a] notice to vacate.”

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 10. Second, the lease agreement established a

month-to-month tenancy and provided that Alexander’s rent payments were to

be paid in advance. Id. Alexander allegedly failed to make her payments.

Accordingly, the small claims court erred under Indiana Code sections 32-31-1-

6(1) and 32-31-1-8(5) when it dismissed the Landlord’s notice of claim.

[9] For all of these reasons, we reverse the small claims court’s judgment and

remand for further proceedings.

[10] Reversed and remanded.

Altice, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Frank J. Agostino South Bend, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-EV-419 | July 23, 2024 Page 5 of 5