Brown v. Guinn
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 299
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Brown contracted to take possession of Guinn's 2003 Coronado truck in June 2009, and assumed monthly payments to Daimler Truck Financial.
- The contract allowed either party to cancel at any time and Brown drafted the agreement; no specific term or payment amount stated in writing.
- Brown made three consecutive payments (July–September 2009) but then stopped paying while retaining possession of the truck.
- Daimler Truck Financial repossessed the truck in January 2010 while it remained in Brown's possession.
- Guinn filed a claim on August 9, 2011, alleging Brown breached by not paying October–December 2009 while in possession.
- At trial, Guinn did not produce a copy of the contract, Brown admitted the contract existed, and Brown testified he cancelled the contract in August 2009, though a sale fell through.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion on Rule 41(B) dismissal | Guinn argues dismissal was warranted due to lack of contract proof. | Brown contends failure to produce the contract required dismissal. | No reversible error; contract existence admitted sustains denial |
| Whether Brown was estopped from denying the lease term | Guinn claims estoppel due to Brown's possession and failure to introduce the contract. | Brown contends no evidence supports possession or estoppel. | No reversible error; parol evidence would govern length even if contract not produced |
| Whether evidence supports breach of contract | Guinn asserts Brown breached by not paying for three months while in possession. | Brown argues the agreement was cancelled and payments fulfilled under his control. | Evidence supports breach; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Dunkirk Water and Sewage Dep't v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115 (Ind.1995) (standard of review for bench trial judgments)
- Bowman v. Kitchel, 644 N.E.2d 878 (Ind.1995) (informal nature of small claims; writing required only; entries need not be formal)
- Counceller v. Ecenbarger, Inc., 834 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (credibility not reweighed on appeal; parol evidence considerations)
- Bennett v. Broderick, 858 N.E.2d 1044 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (supporting rules on small claims and trial procedures)
- Fielitz v. Allred, 173 Ind.App. 540 (Ind.App.1977) (test for sufficiency in claims tried without jury)
- Counceller, 834 N.E.2d 1018, 834 N.E.2d 1018 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (parol evidence and credibility in bench trial)
- Hartson-Kennedy Cabinet Top Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co., 857 N.E.2d 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (evidence and contract requirements in Indiana)