Melton Ortiz v. Jonathan's Landing Community Association, Inc. (mem. dec.), 02A05-1704-SC-828

Ortiz owns a home in Jonathan’s Landing and, by covenant, is a member of the homeowners association (the Association) and obligated to pay assessed dues. The covenants allocate part of dues to recreation, including an Association pool.
Ortiz repeatedly tendered partial annual payments of $275 when total dues were $330; he wrote notes disclaiming payment of pool fees or stating payment applied to a specific year.
The Association rejected the partial payments as not in full satisfaction, applied payments to prior arrearages, issued invoices for remaining balances, and filed liens and small-claims actions to collect unpaid amounts.
A prior 2014 small-claims judgment had already found Ortiz liable for full assessed dues; the trial court’s 2017 order reiterated Ortiz’s liability and awarded the Association $415 plus costs and reasonable attorney fees.
Ortiz asserted three affirmative defenses on appeal—promissory estoppel, accord and satisfaction, and abandonment—arguing the Association’s past conduct permitted him to pay reduced dues (excluding pool fees).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether promissory estoppel barred collection of full dues	Association: no promise was made or relied upon that excused full payment	Ortiz: Association promised he could pay partial dues (excluding pool) and he reasonably relied on that promise	Court: No; evidence did not show an enforceable, continuing promise or reasonable reliance — Ortiz failed to prove promissory estoppel
Whether tendered payments constituted accord and satisfaction	Association: it did not accept checks as full satisfaction and notified Ortiz of remaining balances	Ortiz: his checks and notes indicated settlement of dues	Court: No; checks lacked an express condition of full satisfaction and Association did not positively understand acceptance as full discharge
Whether Association abandoned its right to collect full dues	Association: it consistently enforced full dues after 2013 and did not acquiesce	Ortiz: prior acceptance of partial payments showed abandonment	Court: No; isolated or unclear past acceptances do not show abandonment of contractual right to assess and collect full dues
Whether res judicata barred Ortiz’s claims	Association: prior 2014 judgment addressed same dispute	Ortiz: challenged merits anyway	Court: Possibly barred but court reached the merits and affirmed liability for full dues; prior rulings support the result

City of Dunkirk Water & Sewage Dep’t v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115 (Ind. 1995) (articulates deference in small-claims bench trials to trial court’s credibility findings)
Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 2003) (clarifies standard of review for legal issues on appeal)
Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 2006) (discusses standard of review for small claims and bench trial findings)
Brown v. Branch, 758 N.E.2d 48 (Ind. 2001) (defines promissory estoppel elements)
Mominee v. King, 629 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (explains accord and satisfaction by check requires express condition and creditor’s understanding)
Rauch v. Shots, 533 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (addresses requirements for accord and satisfaction and burden to prove it)