Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-1723 | February 20, 2020 Page 1 of 7

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Frank J. Agostino

South Bend, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jason Pfledderer and Walking 

With Jesus Ministries,

Appellants-Defendants,

v.

DeParris Pratt,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 20, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-SC-1723

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable Elizabeth A. 

Hardtke, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

71D06-1904-SC-5105

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-1723 | February 20, 2020 Page 2 of 7

[1] Jason Pfledderer and Walking with Jesus Ministries, Inc. (the Ministry), appeal 

the trial court’s order granting judgment in favor of DeParris Pratt on Pratt’s 

complaint for wrongful ejectment after the Ministry barred Pratt from 

continuing to reside at a Ministry-operated residence. Finding that the Ministry 

falls under an exception to the landlord-tenant statutes, we reverse and remand 

with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Pfledderer and the Ministry.

Facts

[2] Pfledderer founded the Ministry, which is organized as a not-for-profit 

corporation registered as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt entity. The purpose of the 

Ministry is to offer people who have been convicted of a felony assistance to 

reintegrate into society after being released from incarceration. Participants 

must apply for acceptance into the program and meet certain ongoing

requirements, including attending church services, attending meetings that 

reflect on scripture, and seeking full-time employment. Participants must pay a 

program fee of $100 per week and, in exchange, receive shelter, support, and 

job training. The Ministry owns multiple real properties.

[3] Pratt entered the Ministry program on March 21, 2019, after he was released 

from incarceration. Pratt moved into a room in a house owned by the Ministry. 

He did not sign a lease or any other written agreement. Pratt stayed at the 

property for approximately four weeks, during which time he performed 

approximately thirty hours of work for Pfledderer, including painting, yard 

work, cleaning, moving furniture, and scrapping metal. Pratt maintained time 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-1723 | February 20, 2020 Page 3 of 7

sheets documenting his work hours and did not receive any monetary 

compensation for his work.1 During Pratt’s time in the program, he did not pay 

any money towards the weekly fee of $100.

[4] On April 19, 2019, Pfledderer changed the locks on the property, barring Pratt 

from entering the building or reclaiming his personal items. On April 22, 2019, 

the property manager informed Pratt that Pfledderer wanted him to leave the 

program and the property because he had violated program rules by smoking 

inside and around the premises, failing to obtain full-time employment, and 

failing to pay the weekly program fee. The Ministry did not file an application

with a court for immediate possession or ejectment before taking these actions.

[5] On April 23, 2019, Pratt filed a notice of claim and motion for emergency 

possession of real property in small claims court, seeking damages based on lost 

personal property and all other available relief. On May 3, 2019, the trial court 

held a hearing. Pfledderer brought with him several bags of Pratt’s personal 

items. On May 9, 2019, Pratt, by counsel, filed an amended complaint against 

Pfledderer and the Ministry for emergency possession, conversion/replevin, 

and breach of contract. At the May 29, 2019, bench trial, Pratt appeared pro se 

and Pfledderer and the Ministry appeared by counsel.

[6] On June 26, 2019, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Pratt. It found 

that the Ministry and Pratt were in a landlord-tenant relationship on a week-to1

Pfledderer stated that Pratt’s hours of work amounted to job training.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-1723 | February 20, 2020 Page 4 of 7

week basis. The trial court acknowledged the statutory exception to the 

landlord-tenant rules for religious organizations but found that Pfledderer had 

failed to prove that the exception applied:

Pfledderer owns said property through his corporation, [the 

Ministry]. Pfledderer is a common fixture in the St. Joseph 

County Small Claims courthouse. As such, the Court notes that 

Pfledderer holds many residential properties either through his 

LLC or personally and commonly seeks an order for ejectment in 

said court. The Court also takes note [of Pratt’s] Exhibit 2[,] a 

record of Pfledderer’s other properties and cause numbers. The 

Court fails to distinguish the current property in this case from 

the other properties he owns in the cases listed in [Pratt’s] Exhibit 

2 or the cases [in which] he has previously appeared before the 

court.

Therefore, the Court finds Pfledderer was subject to [the] 

Landlord Tenant Act and should have sought ejectment pursuant 

to IC 31-30-2 et seq. and Pratt was wrongfully ejected from said 

property.

Appealed Order p. 7. The trial court found that the bulk of Pratt’s personal 

property had been returned to him and found no evidence to support Pratt’s 

claims of other specific items he alleged were missing, so it found no damages 

with respect to the personal property. But the trial court credited Pratt’s 

testimony that he had to spend $35 per day for ten days to stay in a hotel after 

he was barred from the Ministry’s property. Therefore, the trial court ordered

the Ministry to pay damages to Pratt in the amount of $350. The Ministry now 

appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-1723 | February 20, 2020 Page 5 of 7

Discussion and Decision

[7] Small claims actions involve informal trials with the sole objective of dispensing 

speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law. Lae 

v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 483 (Ind. 2003). We will reverse only upon 

clear error, will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, and 

will consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Kalwitz v. 

Kalwitz, 934 N.E.2d 741, 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). As always, however, we 

apply a de novo standard of review to matters of statutory interpretation. Eppl 

v. DiGiacomo, 946 N.E.2d 646, 649 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). 

[8] Here, we also note that Pratt has not filed an appellee’s brief. We will not 

undertake the burden of developing arguments on his behalf and will reverse if 

the Ministry establishes prima facie error, meaning error at first sight, on first 

appearance, or on the face of it. Wolverine Mut. Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 933 N.E.2d 

568, 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

[9] Here, even if we accept for argument’s sake that the trial court correctly 

concluded that the arrangement between the Ministry and Pratt bore the 

hallmarks of a landlord-tenant relationship, we must consider the relevant 

statutory exception to the Landlord Tenant Act. Specifically, the legislature has

decreed that there are a number of arrangements that do not fall under the 

residential landlord-tenant statutes, including “[r]esidence at a rental unit 

owned or operated by an institution that is directly related to . . . the provision 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-1723 | February 20, 2020 Page 6 of 7

of . . . education, counseling, religious service, . . . or a similar service.” Ind. 

Code § 32-31-2.9-4(1).

2

[10] It is apparent that, by creating explicit exceptions to the landlord-tenant 

statutes, the General Assembly intended to encourage organizations such as the 

Ministry to provide precisely the type of services it offers. Freeing such 

organizations from the strictures of the Landlord-Tenant Act will allow them to 

continue to help people who desperately need it—for example, people who are 

attempting the monumental task of reintegrating into society following 

incarceration. We infer that the legislature determined that encouraging such 

services is in the best interest of the individuals who need the help as well as 

society at large.

[11] It is undisputed that the residence at issue in this case is owned or operated by 

the Ministry, which is an institution that is directly related to the provision of 

education, counseling, religious services, and similar services such as job 

training and housing. The trial court found that because Pfledderer and/or the 

Ministry own multiple rental properties and have proceeded, in those cases, as 

though they are in landlord-tenant relationships with the person they seek to 

evict, it must mean that here, there is likewise a landlord-tenant relationship. 

We do not find this analysis compelling. We do not know the facts of any of 

2 The exception applies “unless the arrangement was created to avoid application of the residential landlordtenant statutes[.]” I.C. § 32-31-2.9-4. There is no evidence in this case suggesting that the arrangement 

between the Ministry and Pratt was created to avoid application of these statutes.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-SC-1723 | February 20, 2020 Page 7 of 7

those cases, including whether there was a written lease or agreement at issue, 

whether the Ministry was providing a similar service to the individuals in each 

case, or whether Pfledderer, who is sometimes named in his individual 

capacity, owns and operates properties separate and apart from the Ministry. 

[12] All that we know are the facts of this case. Here, the relationship between the 

Ministry and Pratt falls squarely under the exception to the landlord-tenant 

statutes. Therefore, the trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of Pratt 

and ordering the Ministry to pay damages.

[13] The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to 

enter judgment in favor of Pfledderer and the Ministry.

Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.