Sharps Automotive v. Auston Prizevoits

Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant Rodney Dain Doster in his action against SharpÕs Automotive for storage fees, court costs, and lost time.

[2] Prizevoits, who lived in Bloomington, telephoned Sharp’s Automotive, an

Indianapolis-area business, for a free estimate to replace the engine in his car.

An employee from Sharp’s Automotive told Prizevoits that the cost would be

approximately $8,000, but that they would have to inspect the vehicle in order

to provide a more accurate estimate. So, on November 1, 2019, Prizevoits had

his car towed to Sharp’s Automotive.

[3] Prizevoits stopped by Sharp’s Automotive on November 4, 2019 and called on

November 7 to ask if they had inspected his vehicle. They had not, and on

November 11, 2019, Sharp’s Automotive called Prizevoits to advise him that

the estimate would be “around eighty-eight hundred dollars” for the work,

which would be either a custom engine or a rebuild. Tr. Vol. II, p. 7.

[4] On November 14, 2019, Prizevoits called Sharp’s Automotive, stating that he

was unsure if he would have the repairs done there. He called on November

18, 2019, to tell them that he was going to use a different mechanic and that he

had arranged for a tow truck to pick up his vehicle that day. During that call,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-524 | October 14, 2020 Page 3 of 8

he was informed for the first time that he owed $200 for storage costs. Later

that same day within four minutes of closing time, he was first told that the

storage fee would be $230, calculated at $30 per each day the vehicle was on the

premises after the final estimate was provided,

1

and that he needed to pay the

storage fee in cash or otherwise they would place a mechanic’s lien on the

vehicle and dispose of it to satisfy the lien. Prizevoits went to Sharp’s

Automotive the next day, November 19, 2019, and paid $230 to get his vehicle

released and to mitigate his own damages.

[5] Prizevoits sued Sharp’s Automotive in small claims court on January 9, 2020.

He sought damages in the amount of $730; $230 for the storage fees, $102 in

court costs or filing fees, and the remainder for “the hassle of driving back and

forth from Bloomington[] [a]nd missing work.” Id. at 10. Dustin Lloyd

testified on behalf of Sharp’s Automotive, and Prizevoits presented his claim.

At the conclusion of the bench trial, the small claims court entered judgment in

favor of Prizevoits in the amount of $432: $230 for the storage fees; $102 for

the filing fee; and $100 for Prizevoits’ time. Sharp’s Automotive now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Our supreme court has stated the following as respects small claims actions:

1

Sharp’s Automotive acknowledges, and we agree, that there is nothing in the record to explain why the

total storage fee would not be a multiple of $30 based on the charge of $30 per day. See Appellant’s Br. p. 5,

n.1.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-524 | October 14, 2020 Page 4 of 8

Judgments in small claims actions are subject to review as

prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes. Ind. Small

Claims Rule 11(A). Under Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), the clearly

erroneous standard applies to appellate review of facts

determined in a bench trial with due regard given to the

opportunity of the trial court to assess witness credibility. 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. City of Dunkirk Water & Sewage Dep’t v.

Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115, 116 (Ind. 1995) (quoting S.C.R. 8(A)). But

this deferential standard does not apply to the substantive rules of

law, which are reviewed de novo just as they are in appeals from

a court of general jurisdiction. Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d

481, 483 (Ind. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1067-68 (Ind. 2006). “A

judgment is clearly erroneous only if a review of the record leaves the court

with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Walker v. Elkin, 758

N.E.2d 972, 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

[7] We note at the outset that Prizevoits has not filed an appellee’s brief. When an

appellee fails to submit an appellate brief, “‘we need not undertake the burden

of developing an argument on the [A]ppellee’s behalf.’” Front Row Motors, LLC

v. Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753, 758 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Trinity Homes, 848 N.E.2d at

1068). Rather, “‘we will reverse the trial court’s judgment if the appellant’s

brief presents a case of prima facie error.’” Id. “Prima facie error in this

context is defined as, at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.”

Front Row Motors, 5 N.E.3d at 758 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-524 | October 14, 2020 Page 5 of 8

[8] Sharp’s Automotive presents two questions for our review and we address them

in turn. First, Sharp’s Automotive contends that the trial court erred by

entering judgment in favor of Prizevoits on the mistaken premise that there was

no written contract for a storage fee assessed against him. Stated differently,

Sharp’s Automotive asserts that the trial court erred by making the erroneous

assumption that the Indiana Statute of Frauds2

was applicable in this situation.

[9] The Indiana Statute of Frauds, in pertinent part, provides that “[n]o action shall

be brought . . . [t]o charge any person, upon any special promise, to answer for

the debt, default or miscarriage of another. . . [u]nless the promise, contract or

agreement. . . shall be in writing.” See Walker, 758 N.E.2d at 975 (quoting Ind.

Code § 32-2-1-1 (repealed by P.L. 2-2002, SEC. 128); but see, Ind. Code § 32-21-

1-1(b)(2) (2002).

[10] Assuming arguendo, that the Indiana Statute of Frauds is inapplicable, a

“contract is established by evidence of an offer, acceptance, consideration, and

a manifestation of a mutual assent.” Troutwine Estates Dev. Col, LLC v. Comsub

Design and Eng’g, Inc., 854 N.E.2d 890, 897 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

As stated in Ind. Dep’t of Corr. v. Swanson Servs. Corp., 829 N.E.2d 733, 737 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied:

To bring a contract into existence, an offer must be extended and

the offeree must accept it, the communication of acceptance

being crucial. Thus, a meeting of the minds between the

2

Ind. Code Chapter 32-21-1 (2002).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-524 | October 14, 2020 Page 6 of 8

contracting parties is essential to the formation of a contract.

This meeting of the minds must extend to all essential elements

or terms for a contract to be binding. Likewise, for an oral

contract to exist, parties have to agree to all terms of the contract.

If a party cannot demonstrate agreement on one essential term of

the contract, then there is no mutual assent and no contract is

formed. Without an express contract, written or oral, a party

may recover under the theory of unjust enrichment, or quantum

meruit. (internal citations and quotations omitted).

[11] The trial court correctly observed that there was no meeting of the minds

regarding the storage fees. The record reflects that once Lloyd learned that

Prizevoits did not wish to have the work done at his shop, he told Prizevoits

that he owed the storage fees that were to be paid in cash. Lloyd testified that

there were signs posted on the property, but Prizevoits testified that he was

unaware of the signage and was unaware of the fees until Lloyd communicated

such.

[12] Here, the record supports the trial court’s judgment that there was no meeting

of the minds as respects the storage fee imposed by Sharp’s Automotive and

ultimately paid for by Prizevoits. Indeed, the record reflects that Prizevoits’

payment was more pragmatic than contractually obligatory as it was the sole

means of recovering possession of his vehicle. Thus, there was no evidence of a

written contract regarding the storage fees, nor was there a meeting of the

minds such that an oral contract existed. The trial court did not err.

[13] Next, Sharp’s Automotive contends that the trial court arrived at an improper

calculation of damages, specifically targeting the trial court’s award of $100 in

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-524 | October 14, 2020 Page 7 of 8

damages for “the hassle of driving back and forth from Bloomington[] [a]nd

missing work.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 10.

[14] “A damage award will not be reversed if it falls within the bounds of the

evidence.” Sims v. Pappas, 73 N.E.3d 700, 709 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Raess v.

Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 795 (Ind. 2008)). Stated differently, we will not

reverse so long as the damages award is within the scope of the evidence.

Manzo v. Estep, 689 N.E.2d 474 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). “We look only to the

evidence and inferences therefrom which support [the factfinder’s decision], and

will affirm it if there is any evidence in the record which supports the amount of

the award, even if it is variable or conflicting.” Sims, 73 N.E.3d at 709 (quoting

Raess, 883 N.E.2d at 795). We will find an excessive judgment only if the

amount cannot be based on anything other than prejudice, passion, partiality,

corruption, or some other element of improper consideration. Id. (citing Parke

State Bank v. Akers, 659 N.E.2d 1031, 1035 (Ind. 1995)).

[15] The record reflects that Prizevoits sought damages in the amount of $730: $230

for the storage fees; $102 in court costs or filing fees; and the remainder for his

time off of work and for the extra trips back and forth between Bloomington

and Indianapolis to resolve the matter. Sharp’s Automotive offered no

evidence to contradict the amount sought by Prizevoits. Instead of awarding

the requested $398, the trial court only awarded $100, which falls squarely

within the range of the evidence and common knowledge. We thus conclude

that the trial court’s award was appropriate.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-SC-524 | October 14, 2020 Page 8 of 8

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the small claims court.