Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-526 | August 20, 2019 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Joshua Lee

Depauw, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Jason A. Lopp

Whitney E. Wood

McNeely Stephenson

New Albany, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joshua Lee,

Appellant,

v.

Countryside Auto Sales, LLC,

Appellee

August 20, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-SC-526

Appeal from the Harrison Superior

Court

The Honorable Joseph L. 

Claypool, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

31D01-1812-SC-269

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-526 | August 20, 2019 Page 2 of 6

[1] Joshua Lee appeals the trial court’s order ruling in favor of Countryside Auto 

Sales, LLC (Countryside), on Lee’s complaint. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts

[2] On January 29, 2018, Lee purchased a used 1999 GMC Sierra 1500 (the truck) 

from Countryside for $5,626.01.1 Lee made a down payment of $1,500 and 

executed a contract (the Contract) and security agreement for the remaining 

balance. The Contract stated as follows, in relevant part:

Vehicle Inspection. You are purchasing the Vehicle based upon 

your personal inspection, and are not relying upon any opinion, 

statement, promise or representation of the salesperson, or any 

other of our employees that is not contained in the written 

agreements you are signing today.

Vehicle Condition. You understand that the Vehicle may have 

sustained prior body damage and may have undergone prior 

mechanical repairs during or after its manufacture, during or 

after transit to us or while in the possession of prior owners or 

operators.

Warranty Information

Warranty. We make no express or implied warranties. Except 

as required by law, we make no implied warranty of 

merchantability and no warranty that the Vehicle is fit for a 

particular purpose. We sell the Vehicle AS IS—NOT 

 

1 Nothing in the record suggests that Lee is anything other than a competent adult.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-526 | August 20, 2019 Page 3 of 6

EXPRESSLY WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED. WITH 

ALL FAULTS.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 44-45 (emphases original).

[3] Lee alleges that soon after he purchased the truck, the truck bed began leaning 

toward the cab because of substantial rust underneath the truck. He claims that 

the truck is now unsafe to drive. Countryside states that its salesman informed 

Lee that there was rust underneath the truck, though Countryside maintains 

that it was unaware of rust to the extent that Lee claims exists. Lee also claims 

that the salesman told him that the truck would be good to “haul things” and 

that the truck came with a warranty. Tr. Vol. II p. 8-10.

[4] On December 17, 2018, Lee filed a small claims action against Countryside, 

asking for damages to repair the vehicle.2 Lee subsequently amended the 

complaint and asked the trial court to rescind the contract. Following a bench 

trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Countryside. Lee now 

appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] In reviewing a small claims judgment, we will not set it aside unless it is clearly 

erroneous. Eagle Aircraft, Inc. v. Trojnar, 983 N.E.2d 648, 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2013). We may neither reweigh the evidence nor re-assess witness credibility

 

2 Neither the original nor the amended complaint appears to be included in the record on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-526 | August 20, 2019 Page 4 of 6

and must instead consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences that may 

be drawn therefrom that support the judgment. Id. If a reasonable factfinder 

could conclude that the party bearing the burden of proof—here, Lee—failed to 

carry that burden by establishing their claims by a preponderance of the 

evidence, we will affirm. Id. This deferential standard of review is especially 

important in small claims actions, where the trials are “‘informal, with the sole 

objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules 

of substantive law.’” Id. (quoting Ind. Small Claims Rule 8(A)).

[6] Initially, we note that small claims courts do not have the authority to grant the 

equitable remedy of rescission. Nielson Buick Jeep Eagle Subaru v. Hall, 726 

N.E.2d 358, 360-61 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Therefore, the trial court did not err 

by denying this relief.

[7] Next, we address the crux of Lee’s complaint—that he did not knowingly agree 

to buy the truck “as is.” As a general rule, the law allows competent adults the 

utmost liberty in entering into contracts which, when entered into freely and 

voluntarily, will be enforced by the courts. Trimble v. Ameritech Publishing, Inc., 

700 N.E.2d 1128, 1129 (Ind. 1998). It is well settled that a used car dealer 

“may disclaim implied warranties through the use of conspicuous language 

containing expressions like ‘as is’ or ‘with all faults’ or other language which in 

common understanding call the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties 

and makes plain there is no implied warranty.” Town and Country Ford, Inc. v. 

Busch, 709 N.E.2d 1030, 1033 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-526 | August 20, 2019 Page 5 of 6

[8] Here, Lee signed a contract containing written disclaimers of warranty. The 

disclaimers were in bold and partially capitalized and expressly disclaimed 

warranties of both merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. 

Furthermore, the contract also explicitly stated that Lee was not “relying upon 

any opinion, statement, promise or representation of the salesperson” not 

contained in the contract. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 44. Therefore, Lee has 

no right to direct our attention to any statements allegedly made by the 

Countryside salesperson. See Circle Centre Dev. Co. v. Y/G Ind., L.P., 762 N.E.2d 

176, 181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that a party “cannot affirmatively state 

in writing that it has ‘independently investigated’ the matters at issue and that it 

‘has not relied upon any inducements or representations’ by [the other party] or 

its agents and then, after the fact, repudiate those provisions”). Therefore, to 

succeed on any fraud-related claim, Lee would have to show fraud in the 

express terms of the contract, which he cannot do. LTD Keller Farms, LLC v. 

Brigitte Holmes Livestock Co., 722 F. Supp. 2d 1015, 1029 (N.D. Ind. 2010) 

(interpreting and applying Indiana law).

[9] The simple fact is that Lee signed a contract. The contract is valid. As a 

competent adult, he is assumed to have read and understood the terms of the

contract before signing it. He is now bound by those terms. Consequently, the 

trial court did not err by finding that Countryside disclaimed all warranties.

[10] Lee also makes an argument under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. 

Ind. Code ch. 24-5-0.5. The statute requires that a plaintiff making such a claim 

must give timely notice “that shall state fully the nature of the alleged deceptive 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-SC-526 | August 20, 2019 Page 6 of 6

act and the actual damages suffered therefrom” within six months of the 

discovery of the deceptive act. Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-5(a). Here, Lee failed to 

provide such notice in a timely fashion. Moreover, the trial court could have 

reasonably concluded that the language of the Contract discussed above would 

have denied Lee the right to recover under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer 

Sales Act.3

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

Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.

 

3 On appeal, Lee also mentions the “Used Car Rule” based in 16 C.F.R. 455. He did not make this claim at 

the trial court level and has consequently waived the right to do so on appeal. While we allow a great deal of 

latitude to small claims plaintiffs, see Ind. Small Claims Rules 2 and 8, this is a very specific claim that needed 

to be pleaded explicitly so that Countryside could prepare a defense to it. Therefore, we find it waived.