Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 1 of 14

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Matthew A. Griffith

Griffith Xidias Law Group LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Scott J. Fandre

Krieg DeVault LLP

Mishawaka, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Celso Abraham Clemente 

Ramirez,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Swages Real Estate, LLC,1

Appellee-Defendant.

April 3, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-PL-2174

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Patrick J. Dietrick, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49D12-1402-PL-4128

Mathias, Judge.

1

Several other defendants are named in the complaint below, but the appealed order pertains only to the 

complaint against Swages Real Estate, LLC. None of the additional defendants below entered an 

appearance, submitted a brief, or otherwise participated on appeal. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 2 of 14

[1] Celso Abraham Clemente Ramirez a/k/a Maynor Clemente Ramos 

(“Maynor”) appeals the judgment of the Marion Superior Court denying his 

claim against Swages Real Estate, LLC (“Swages”) regarding certain property 

located at 5464 East 18th Street in Indianapolis (“the Property”). On appeal, 

Maynor presents six issues, which we consolidate and restate as: 

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain 

evidence; 

II. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that Maynor was 

barred from recovery by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands; 

III. Whether the trial court clearly erred by concluding that Maynor 

had granted authority to a third party to sell the Property; and 

IV. Whether the trial court clearly erred by failing to award Maynor 

title to the Property, damages, and attorney fees. 

Because the trial court did not err in concluding that Maynor did not meet his 

burden of showing that he held title to the Property, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History2

[2] The identity of Maynor is a key factor in the resolution of this case. The name 

on his birth certificate is Maynor Clemente Ramos, but he has also used other 

names, including Maynor Clemente Judiel Ramos and Celso Abraham 

2 Because Ramirez appeals following a bench trial in which the trial court entered judgment denying his 

claims, we restate the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment. We remind Ramirez’s 

counsel that the Statement of Facts contained in an Appellant’s Brief must be “stated in accordance with the 

standard of review appropriate to the judgment or order being appealed.” Ind. Appellate Rule 46(a)(6)(b). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 3 of 14

Clemente Ramirez. Maynor has a cousin in Guatemala whose name is Celso 

Abraham Celmente Ramirez. Maynor was born in Guatemala and entered the 

United States illegally in 1999 to visit his father, who then lived in Florida. 

Maynor testified that he began to use the name Celso Abraham Clemente 

Ramirez shortly after his entry into this country. Although Maynor was almost 

immediately detained by immigration authorities, he was released and 

remained in the United States. Maynor later settled in Indianapolis, where he 

began a construction business.3

[3] Maynor testified that, in December 2008, he used the services of a real estate 

broker, Hilda Ellis (“Ellis”), to help purchase the Property. The Property was 

transferred to “Celso A. Ramirez” on December 11, 2008, via a warranty deed 

in consideration for $25,000. Maynor used a false identification to purchase the 

property; specifically he used a consular identification card issued by the 

government of Guatemala that listed his name as “Celso Abraham Ramirez,” 

his cousin’s name. This identification card also listed a birthdate that was not 

the same as Maynor’s actual birthdate. Maynor admitted at trial that the name 

on his birth certificate was Maynor Clemente Ramos, and he used his birth 

name in his request for asylum to federal immigration authorities. Moreover, 

3 Maynor also ran a bus company in Guatemala, which became embroiled in a conflict with local criminal 

gangs. As a result of the threats to his safety from these gangs in Guatemala, Maynor was eventually granted 

asylum in this country after his 2011 deportation. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 4 of 14

Ellis identified Ramirez at trial as “Maynor Celso” and “Maynor Clemente 

Judiel Ramos.” Tr. p. 16. 

[4] In Indianapolis, Maynor began a relationship with Wendi Linares (“Linares”), 

with whom he eventually had a child. Linares assisted in running Maynor’s 

business. On July 20, 2011, Maynor was detained by federal immigration 

authorities and deported to Guatemala on August 4, 2011, where he continued 

to run his busing company. 

[5] On August 3, 2011, while Maynor was still in custody in the United States, a 

durable power of attorney was executed and notarized in Guatemala by “Celso 

Abraham Clemente Ramirez aka Celso A. Ramirez,” designating Linares as 

attorney-in-fact for Ramirez. The power of attorney granted to Linares 

included:

the full power and authority to manage and conduct all of my 

affairs, and to exercise my legal rights and powers, including 

those rights and powers that I may acquire in the future,

including the following: 

* * *

B. Buy and Sell. To purchase, sell, mortgage, grant options, or 

otherwise deal in any way in any real property or personal 

property, tangible or intangible, or any interest therein, upon 

such terms as the Agent considers proper . . . .

Ex. Vol, Plaintiff’s Ex. 21. Using this power of attorney, Linares executed a 

purchase agreement on behalf of “Celso A. Ramirez” for the purchase and sale 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 5 of 14

of the Property. On June 27, 2013, Swages purchased the property, paying 

“Celso Ramirez” $29,500. Tr. p. 151. 

[6] Maynor returned to Indianapolis in October 2013, and was granted asylum in 

the United States. When he returned to Indianapolis, he discovered that Linares 

had sold the Property. Maynor, through counsel, demanded that Swages return 

the property to him, but Swages declined. 

[7] Accordingly, on February 14, 2014, Maynor filed a complaint naming Swages 

and Linares, among others, as defendants. Maynor also filed a lis pendens notice 

against the Property. Swages filed a response, asserting a third-party claim for 

fraud against Linares. On June 25, 2019, Maynor, Linares, and the other 

defendants reached settlement agreements, leaving only Swages as a defendant 

and Linares as a third-party defendant. 

[8] On June 24, 2019, the trial court held a bench trial on Maynor’s claims against 

Swages. At trial, Maynor twice requested leave to amend the pleadings to 

conform with the evidence, arguing that he should be permitted to bring claims 

of trespass, frivolous defense, and conversion. The trial court denied Maynor’s 

requests. On August 19, 2019, the trial court entered findings of fact and 

conclusions of law denying Maynor’s claims. The trial court interpreted 

Maynor’s claim against Swages as an equitable claim to quiet title and 

determined that Maynor could not seek equitable relief because he came to the 

court with “unclean hands.” More importantly, however, the trial court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 6 of 14

concluded that Maynor had not met his burden of showing that he held title to 

the Property, writing: 

46. Plaintiff has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence 

that he holds title to the Property. 

47. Plaintiff claims he holds title to the Property. 

48. However, Plaintiff admitted that he has used multiple 

names/aliases in his life. 

49. Title to the Property was taken under the name of Celso 

A. Ramirez, but Plaintiff has not provided valid identification 

showing that Celso A. Ramirez is his name. 

50. In deportation proceedings Plaintiff was identified as Minor 

[sic] Clemente Ramos by the United States Department of 

Justice. 

51. Further, Plaintiff admits that he has a cousin by the name of 

“Celso Abraham Clemente Ramirez.” 

52. It is impossible to know if Plaintiff was ever the true title 

holder of the Property. 

53. Merely attending the closing and tendering funds to 

purchase the Property does not necessarily make you the title 

holder of the Property. You can purchase property on behalf of 

others. 

54. It is impossible for this Court, as trier of fact, to determine if 

it was ever actually Plaintiff that held title to the Property. 

55. Plaintiff cannot meet his burden proof so this Court denies 

Plaintiff the equitable relief he seeks. 

Appellant’s App. pp. 31–32 (emphases added). Maynor now appeals. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 7 of 14

Standard of Review

[9] In cases where the trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law, our 

standard of review is well settled:

First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings 

and second, whether the findings support the judgment. In 

deference to the trial court’s proximity to the issues, we disturb 

the judgment only where there is no evidence supporting the 

findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. We do not 

reweigh the evidence but consider only the evidence favorable to 

the trial court’s judgment. Challengers must establish that the 

trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly 

erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced 

a mistake has been made. However, while we defer substantially 

to findings of fact, we do not do so to conclusions of law. 

Additionally, a judgment is clearly erroneous under Indiana Trial 

Rule 52 if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. We evaluate 

questions of law de novo and owe no deference to a trial court’s 

determination of such questions.

RCM Phoenix Partners, LLC v. 2007 E. Meadows, LP, 118 N.E.3d 756, 759–60 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. “Moreover, ‘[w]e may affirm a judgment on 

any legal theory, whether or not relied upon by the trial court, so long as the 

trial court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and support the theory adopted.’” 

Id. at 760. (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920, 923–24 (Ind. 1998)). 

[10] We also note that, as the plaintiff, Maynor bore the burden of proof at trial. A 

judgment entered against a party who bore the burden of proof at trial is a 

negative judgment. DeGood Dimensional Concepts, Inc. v. Wilder, 135 N.E.3d 625, 

632 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Stoffel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 3 N.E.3d 548, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 8 of 14

552 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)). We will not reverse a negative judgment on appeal 

unless it is contrary to law. Id. To determine whether a judgment is contrary to 

law, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, 

together with all the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. (citing 

Stoffel, 3 N.E.3d at 553). A party appealing from a negative judgment must 

show that the evidence “points unerringly to a conclusion different than that 

reached by the trial court.” Id. (citing Smith v. Dermatology Assoc., 977 N.E.2d 1, 

4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)). 

[11] As our supreme court recently observed, “It is hard to conceive of a situation 

where an appellant would satisfy the sufficiency-based ‘clearly erroneous’ 

standard of [Trial] Rule 52 yet would fail to meet the supposedly more onerous 

negative-judgment standard.” Town of Brownsburg v. Fight Against Brownsburg 

Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597, 602 (Ind. 2019). The court summarized the 

differences between the clearly erroneous standard on the one hand and the 

negative judgment standard on the other: “In one, the inquiry is essentially 

whether there is any way the trial court could have reached its decision. In the 

other, it is whether there is no way the court could have” done so. Id. (quoting 

Spranger v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1117, 1120 (Ind. 1995) (emphasis in original)). It is 

with this stringent standard that we review Maynor’s claims. 

Discussion and Decision

[12] Maynor presents several issues for our review. He first argues that the trial court 

erred by considering materials that were submitted to the court prior to trial but
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 9 of 14

that were never admitted into evidence at trial, specifically referring to: (1) 

Ellis’s affidavit submitted in support of summary judgment; (2) Linares’s 

affidavit submitted in support of her motion to dismiss; (3) an exhibit attached 

to Swages’s answer; (4) an exhibit attached to the complaint; and (5) Linares’s 

supplemental affidavit submitted in support of a motion to strike. Maynor 

claims that this “post-trial” evidence is not part of the record and could not 

properly be considered by the trial court in its judgment. 

[13] First, we do not agree that these materials are not part of the record. They were 

submitted by the parties in support of various pre-trial motions; therefore, they 

are part of the trial court’s record. See Ind. Appellate Rule 27 (“The Record on 

Appeal shall consist of the Clerk's Record and all proceedings before the trial 

court . . . , whether or not transcribed or transmitted to the Court on Appeal.”); 

Ind. Appellate Rule 2(E) (“The Clerk's Record is the Record maintained by the 

clerk of the trial court . . . and shall consist of the Chronological Case Summary 

(CCS) and all papers, pleadings, documents, orders, judgments, and other 

materials filed in the trial court or . . . listed in the CCS.”). Moreover, even if 

the trial court should not have considered these items in coming to its final 

judgment, any error was harmless, as the parts of the trial court’s findings that 

do not refer to this evidence are sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment.

[14] The remainder of Maynor’s claims are based on the premise that he holds title 

to the Property. The trial court found that Maynor had not met his burden of 

proving that he holds title to the Property. Thus, we consider this dispositive 

question. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 10 of 14

[15] For a plaintiff to prevail in an action to quiet title, the plaintiff must prove that 

he owns superior title to the property in question. See 24 Ind. Law Encyc. 

Quieting Title § 26 (“The complaint in an action to quiet title must, by 

appropriate allegations, show title in the plaintiff as to the property in 

controversy at the time the action was commenced.”) (footnote omitted); 65 

Am. Jur. 2d Quieting Title § 27 (“To maintain a quiet title action, the 

complainant must own or have legal title to, or an interest in, the property in 

question . . . .”). An action to quiet title may be equitable or statutory in nature. 

ABN AMRO Mortgage Grp., Inc. v. Am. Residential Servs., LLC, 845 N.E.2d 209, 

215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Terpstra v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 483 

N.E.2d 749, 757 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), trans. denied).

4

 

[16] Here, there is no indication that Maynor followed the procedures for a statutory 

action to quiet title, and the trial court therefore considered his claim as an 

independent, equitable claim to quiet title. See id. (even where plaintiff did 

follow procedures for statutory quiet title action, “longstanding common law 

predating the quiet title statute provides an independent equitable basis for 

quieting title.”). Maynor presented evidence that “Celso A. Ramirez” 

purchased the Property on December 11, 2008. Both he and Ellis testified that 

they attended a real estate closing where Maynor purchased the Property in the 

name of Celso A. Ramirez. But the trial court simply did not believe that 

4

“The quiet title statute supplements, but does not replace, the common law basis for quieting title.” Id. The 

distinction between the statutory and equitable actions is that a statutory action quiets title “as to the whole 

world,” whereas an equitable action quiets title “only as to the parties named in [the] complaint.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 11 of 14

Maynor was, in fact, Celso A. Ramirez. Instead, the trial court believed that 

Maynor purchased the Property in the name of, or on behalf of, Celso A. 

Ramirez, perhaps to avoid detection under his own name for living in the 

United States without legal authorization. Celso A. Ramirez was also the name 

of Maynor’s cousin in Guatemala, which lends credence to the idea that 

Maynor simply used a relative’s name. The identification Maynor provided to 

establish that he was Celso A. Ramirez did not match Maynor’s name or birth 

date. The bottom line is that the trial court was under no obligation to credit 

any part of either Maynor’s or Ellis’s testimony. And given the confusion 

surrounding whether Maynor purchased the Property on behalf of his cousin, or 

whether Maynor had essentially assumed the identity of his cousin, the trial 

court was well within its discretion to conclude that Maynor did not establish 

that he was the Celso A. Ramirez in whose name the Property was titled. 

[17] Moreover, even if Maynor did establish that he was the owner of the Property, 

the trial court concluded that he was precluded from seeking the equitable relief 

of quieting title under the doctrine of “unclean hands.” 

[T]his doctrine is one of a number of maxims applied when 

deciding if a party who seeks equitable relief has behaved in a 

manner justifying that relief. See Wedgewood Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. 

Nash, 810 N.E.2d 346, 347 (Ind. 2004) (Rucker, J., dissenting 

from denial of transfer). The doctrine of unclean hands requires 

that “‘he who seeks equity . . . come into court with clean 

hands’” and “‘closes the door of a court of equity to one tainted 

with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which 

he seeks relief, however improper may have been the behavior of 

the defendant.’” Id. (quoting ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 510 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 12 of 14

U.S. 317, 330 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring)). “‘Almost any kind 

of conduct the [court] may consider to be unethical or improper 

might suffice to bar the plaintiff’s claim, even if the conduct is not 

actually illegal.’” Id. at 347–48 (quoting 1 Dan B. Dobbs, Law of 

Remedies 2.4(2) (2d ed. 1993)).

Woodruff v. Ind. Family & Soc. Servs. Admin., 964 N.E.2d 784, 792 n.5 (Ind. 

2012). 

[18] Maynor takes issue with the trial court’s conclusion that he had unclean hands. 

He claims that his status at the time of the Property’s purchase as an 

undocumented immigrant cannot itself constitute unclean hands, noting that he 

has since been granted asylum in the United States. But the trial court did not 

base its conclusion solely on Maynor’s status as an undocumented immigrant. 

The trial court focused more on the fact that Maynor used his cousin’s name 

and identity to conduct his business in Indiana. Maynor claims that, in 

Hispanic culture, it is common for an individual to use a name other than his or 

her given name. Even if this were the case, the trial court did not, as suggested 

by Maynor, ignore this cultural norm. It simply did not believe that this was the 

reason Maynor purchased the Property in the name of Celso A. Ramirez. 

Indeed, Maynor used his birth name in his asylum proceedings. As noted by the 

trial court, there are any number of reasons why a person might purchase real 

property in the name of another person. Considering only the facts most 

favorable to the trial court’s judgment, we cannot say that Maynor has met the 

onerous burden of showing that there was no way the trial court could have 

concluded that he had unclean hands. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 13 of 14

[19] Maynor also contests Swages’s status as a bona fide purchaser of the Property. 

Maynor’s claim is based on the premise that Linares’s power of attorney was 

fraudulently obtained. But the trial court did not find this to be the case. The 

trial court noted that Linares assisted Maynor in running his business and that 

Maynor requested that Linares send him money after he was deported. The 

power of attorney document states that it was notarized in Guatemala and 

signed by Celso A. Ramirez. Although Maynor notes that he was in the custody 

of American immigration authorities at the time the power of attorney was 

executed, this does not mean that the power of attorney was fraudulently 

obtained. The trial court could have concluded that Maynor’s cousin, Celso A. 

Ramirez, executed the power of attorney and that this same Celso A. Ramirez 

was the titled owner of the Property. Because there is evidence supporting the 

trial court’s conclusion that the power of attorney was not fraudulently 

obtained, Maynor’s argument that Linares’s sale of the Property to Swages was 

void ab initio due to a fraudulent power of attorney fails. 

Conclusion

[20] As a party appealing from a negative judgment, Maynor has not met his burden

of showing that the evidence points unerringly to a conclusion different than 

that reached by the trial court. Simply put, the trial court was under no 

obligation to credit the testimony of Maynor or Ellis that Maynor was the

purchaser of the Property. The evidence favoring the trial court’s judgment 

instead shows that the Property was purchased in Celso A. Ramirez’s name, 

and Maynor did not satisfy the trial court that he is Celso A. Ramirez. Rather,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-PL-2174 | April 3, 2020 Page 14 of 14

Celso A. Ramirez is Maynor’s cousin in Guatemala, and the evidence leads to 

the inference that Maynor used his cousin’s name and later claimed it as his 

own. Thus, the trial court could also conclude that Maynor came to the court 

with unclean hands and therefore could not seek the equitable relief of quieting 

title to the Property. Lastly, the trial court did not err by concluding that 

Linares’s power of attorney was not fraudulent and that the sale of the Property 

to Swages was not void ab initio. As Maynor’s remaining arguments are all 

premised on his claim that he owns the Property, they necessarily fail. For all of 

these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

[21] Affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.