Court Opinion

ID: 9906580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 17:03:00.33881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:13.353839
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       Dec 04 2023, 8:54 am

                                                                            CLERK
                                                                        Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                           Court of Appeals
                                                                             and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE                                           ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Charles Wenner                                             Kathleen E. Field
Bloomington, Indiana                                       Zach Wakefield (Certified Legal
                                                           Intern)
                                                           Bloomington, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Charles Andrew Wenner,                                     December 4, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           23A-SC-973
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
                                                           Court
Gehrid Hensley, et al.,                                    The Honorable Emily A.
Appellees-Plaintiffs                                       Salzmann, Judge
                                                           The Honorable Stephen R. Galvin,
                                                           Senior Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           53C08-2212-SC-1253

                             Opinion by Chief Judge Altice
                        Judges Weissmann and Kenworthy concur.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023                             Page 1 of 11
      Case Summary
[1]   Charles Andrew Wenner, pro se, appeals a small claims judgment issued

      against him and in favor of Haynen Johnson, Gehrid Hensley, and Quinn

      Kaiser (collectively, Tenants). Because his appeal is permeated with procedural

      bad faith and presents no coherent arguments, we find all issues raised by

      Wenner to be waived, and we grant Tenants’ request for appellate attorney’s

      fees.

[2]   We affirm and remand.

      Facts & Procedural History
[3]   Wenner owns a rental property at 702 South Washington Street in

      Bloomington. The residential rental occupancy permit for this property was

      revoked in June 2020 by Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND), a

      department of the City of Bloomington. According to Wenner, who lives out of

      the country, the property had been overtaken by squatters and drug addicts for

      some time before the revocation.

[4]   On January 19, 2021, HAND issued Wenner a temporary rental occupancy

      permit. This permit expressly allowed Wenner to rent out only the house, not

      the “accessory structure” on the property (the garage), which remained out of

      compliance with the housing codes. Exhibits at 61.

[5]   Hensley saw Wenner’s rental listing online, filled out an application, and then

      spoke with Wenner over the phone. Hensley expressed that there would be five

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023     Page 2 of 11
      individuals seeking to live in the rental, and Wenner explained that “five would

      be okay” but that only three could be listed on the lease. Transcript at 82.

      Wenner cautioned that if HAND came for an inspection, they would need to

      say that two of the people were just visiting, as he had been fined in the past for

      allowing five tenants.

[6]   In late January 2021, Hensley and Kaiser went to tour the rental with Justin

      Kidd, who lived there while working on the property. The rental did not look

      like the pictures in the listing, as the windows were boarded up and work was

      being done on the rental. Wenner assured them that the conditions would

      improve before the start of the lease in August. Wenner did not inform Tenants

      of the restriction on use of the garage, which they planned to use for storage and

      for playing and practicing music.

[7]   Hensley sent a $2,050 deposit to Wenner on January 27, and Tenants later

      signed the lease, which was to begin on August 15, 2021. Over the next several

      months, Hensley had some contact with Kidd about improvements being made

      at the rental, and he drove Kidd to Menards more than once to pick up

      supplies. Hensley also helped by mowing the lawn two times at Wenner’s

      request to avoid fines by HAND. Hensley also paid Wenner a portion of the

      first month’s rent early to help move improvements along. But Kidd moved out

      of and stopped working on the rental around mid-July without completing

      necessary repairs.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023       Page 3 of 11
[8]    On or about July 26, Tenants went to check on the rental with keys that had

       been given to Hensley. Tenants discovered what they believed to be unlivable

       conditions inside the rental. There was a musty, moldy smell throughout, and

       current Airbnb guests were complaining about coughs they were developing.

       Tenants found two to three inches of standing water in part of the basement, a

       leak in the wall, and visible mold growing on the walls. There were large holes

       in the drywall, where a wall was falling apart in the basement. The upstairs

       sunroom also had mold and deteriorating walls. Additionally, Tenants found

       the garage littered with trash, including used hypodermic needles.

[9]    Tenants immediately contacted Wenner about the condition of the rental and

       specifically requested that he have professionals come in to assess and treat the

       mold inside the home. Wenner responded that Tenants could just spray the

       mold with bleach and that hiring a professional service was not necessary. He

       otherwise tried to assure them that the rental would be ready by the beginning

       of the lease on August 15 and warned them that they could not void the lease.

[10]   Tenants felt that Wenner had made “a lot of empty promises” over the previous

       six months, and they did not believe that the rental would be made livable in

       the short time remaining before their scheduled move-in date. Transcript at 90.

       After some back and forth with Wenner regarding the mold and other issues,

       Hensley, on behalf of Tenants, sent a message to Wenner stating that the

       “house is not livable” and “we will not be paying you.” Exhibits at 44. When

       Wenner asked for clarification, Hensley responded, “The mold is an especially

       large problem. The repairs that need to be done are beyond our capacity and

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023      Page 4 of 11
       the red flags are continuing to grow.” Id. Tenants spoke with Student Legal

       Services and then moved forward with finding alternative housing.

[11]   On August 30, 2021, Tenants, by counsel through Student Legal Services,

       demanded that Wenner return their security deposit and prepaid rent. Another

       written demand was sent to Wenner on September 15, after the issuance of a

       HAND inspection report from the prior week, which documented around

       seventy existing violations. Particularly relevant here, the report established

       that more than three weeks after Tenants’ lease was to begin, there was still a

       water leak and a damaged wall in the sunroom and a hole in a basement wall,

       along with many windows that did not function properly and various plumbing

       and electrical issues. The garage also remained unavailable for use by renters

       under the temporary rental occupancy permit. Wenner did not receive a (non-

       temporary) residential rental occupancy permit from HAND until May 17,

       2022, after finally establishing compliance.

[12]   Tenants began a small claims action against Wenner in December 2022,

       claiming that he breached the lease by failing to make necessary repairs and to

       conduct necessary cleaning to provide full use of the premises, including the

       garage. Tenants also alleged that parts of the rental were “not fit for human

       habitation.” Appellees’ Appendix at 18.

[13]   A bench trial was held on March 30, 2023, at which Tenants were represented

       by counsel and Wenner proceeded pro se. On April 14, 2023, the trial court

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023      Page 5 of 11
       entered judgment for Tenants in the amount of $3,709.99, 1 plus attorney’s fees

       in the amount of $2,000 and court costs.

[14]   Wenner now appeals pro se. Additional information will be provided below as

       needed.

       Discussion & Decision
[15]   We find Tenants’ assessment of this appeal to be apt:

               This appeal is meritless, frivolous, and not prosecuted in good
               faith. Mr. Wenner deviates from the Appellate Rules and ignores
               substantive law so completely that his brief is arduous to respond
               to in any meaningful way. This appeal is an improper effort to
               relitigate the underlying cause. Mr. Wenner has failed to identify
               a colorable theory to support the prosecution of this appeal.

       Appellees’ Brief at 7.

[16]   It is well established that a pro se litigant will be held to the same standard as a

       licensed attorney. See, e.g., Estate of Carnes, 866 N.E.2d 260, 265 (Ind. Ct. App.

       2007). Ind. Appellate Rule 46(a) clearly sets out the required contents of an

       appellant’s brief and provides in relevant part:

               The appellant’s brief shall contain the following sections under
               separate headings and in the following order:

       1
         This amount included return of the security deposit and prepaid rent and consequential damages for storage
       fees and lost income.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023                             Page 6 of 11
        (1) Table of Contents. The table of contents shall list each section
        of the brief, including the headings and subheadings of each
        section and the page on which they begin.

        (2) Table of Authorities. The table of authorities shall list each case,
        statute, rule, and other authority cited in the brief, with references
        to each page on which it is cited….

        ***

        (4) Statement of Issues. This statement shall concisely and
        particularly describe each issue presented for review.

        (5) Statement of Case. This statement shall briefly describe the
        nature of the case, the course of the proceedings relevant to the
        issues presented for review, and the disposition of these issues by
        the trial court …. Page references to the Record on Appeal or
        Appendix are required in accordance with Rule 22(C).

        (6) Statement of Facts. This statement shall describe the facts
        relevant to the issues presented for review but need not repeat
        what is in the statement of the case.

                 (a) The facts shall be supported by page references to the
                 Record on Appeal or Appendix in accordance with Rule
                 22(C).

                 (b) The facts shall be stated in accordance with the
                 standard of review appropriate to the judgment or order
                 being appealed.

                 ***

        (7) Summary of Argument. The summary should contain a
        succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in
        the body of the brief….

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023            Page 7 of 11
                 (8) Argument. This section shall contain the appellant’s
                 contentions why the trial court … committed reversible error.

                          (a) The argument must contain the contentions of the
                          appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent
                          reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations
                          to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of
                          the Record on Appeal relied on ….

                          (b) The argument must include for each issue a concise
                          statement of the applicable standard of review ….

                          (c) Each argument shall have an argument heading. If
                          substantially the same issue is raised by more than one
                          asserted error, they may be grouped and supported by one
                          argument.

                          ***

                 (9) Conclusion. The conclusion shall include a precise statement of
                 the relief sought and the signature of the attorney and pro se
                 party.

       Id. Further, Ind. Appellate Rule 43(E) requires briefs to be double spaced.

[17]   Wenner’s appellate brief violates each of the above requirements and does not

       resemble proper briefing in any way. Most notably, he does not: (1) set out the

       issues for review, (2) provide a statement of facts, (3) specify the applicable

       standard of review, (4) provide any citations to the record 2 or legal authority, or

       (5) provide cogent argument. His brief is a series of nonsensical ramblings with

       the sole purpose of relitigating whether he could have had (or did have) the

       2
           Wenner did not file an appendix pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 50(a).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023          Page 8 of 11
       rental in habitable condition by August 15, 2021, and whether mold – the

       existence of which he does not dispute – was the real reason Tenants walked

       away from the lease. His reply brief is more of the same. And he improperly

       attempts to assert a counterclaim for the first time on appeal. 3

[18]   We prefer to decide cases on the merits, if such can be done, but “we will deem

       alleged errors waived where an appellant’s noncompliance with the rules of

       appellate procedure is so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of

       the errors.” Ramsey v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486,

       487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (internal quotation omitted). The purpose of our

       appellate rules is to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of

       the burden of searching the record and briefing the case. Id. “We will not

       become an advocate for a party, nor will we address arguments which are either

       inappropriate, too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood.”

       Id. (quoting Terpstra v. Farmers and Merchants Bank, 483 N.E.2d 749, 754 (Ind.

       Ct. App. 1985), trans. denied). Here, Wenner’s noncompliance with the

       appellate rules has substantially impeded our review, and we find the issues

       waived. See id. at 490 (“[B]ecause Ramsey’s noncompliance with the appellate

       3
           Ind. Small Claims Rule 5(A) provides for the time and manner of filing a counterclaim:

               If the defendant has any claim against the plaintiff, the defendant may bring or mail a statement
               of such claim to the small claims court within such time as will allow the court to mail a copy to
               the plaintiff and be received by the plaintiff at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the trial. If
               such counterclaim is not received within this time the plaintiff may request a continuance
               pursuant to S.C. 9. The counterclaim must conform with the requirements of S.C. 2(B)(4).
       The record does not reflect that Wenner raised a counterclaim below.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023                                     Page 9 of 11
       rules substantially impedes us from reaching the merits of this appeal, we are

       compelled to find the issues raised are waived.”).

[19]   In addition to waiver, we find that this is an appropriate case for the assessment

       of appellate attorney’s fees. Ind. Appellate Rule 66(E) provides us with

       discretionary authority to award damages for frivolous or bad-faith filings. We

       use “extreme restraint when exercising this power” due to its potential chilling

       effect on the exercise of the right to appeal. Carnes, 866 N.E.2d at 267.

               A strong showing is required to justify an award of appellate
               damages, and the sanction is not imposed to punish mere lack of
               merit, but something more egregious. Just as pro se litigants are
               required to follow all of the rules of appellate procedure, they are
               also liable for attorney fees when they disregard the rules in bad
               faith.

       Id.

[20]   Attorney’s fees may be awarded under this rule for substantive or procedural

       bad faith. As is relevant here, procedural bad faith:

               occurs when a party flagrantly disregards the form and content
               requirements of the rules of appellate procedure, omits and
               misstates relevant facts appearing in the record, and files briefs
               written in a manner calculated to require the maximum
               expenditure of time both by the opposing party and the reviewing
               court. Even if the appellant’s conduct falls short of that which is
               deliberate or by design, procedural bad faith can still be found.

       Id. (internal quotations omitted).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023       Page 10 of 11
[21]   Wenner’s procedural bad faith is widespread. As noted above, he wholly

       disregarded the form and content requirements of our appellate rules.

       Moreover, aside from lacking citations to the record or providing a separate

       statement of facts section, the facts he relies on in his appellate briefs often lack

       support in the record or are irrelevant, and they are not stated in a light most

       favorable to the trial court’s judgment. Finally, his briefs required an inordinate

       amount of time to decipher and wade through.

[22]   In sum, Wenner’s procedural bad faith rises to the level of egregiousness for

       which appellate attorney’s fees are warranted. Accordingly, we remand for a

       determination of appellate attorney’s fees to be awarded to Tenants.

[23]   Judgment affirmed and remanded.

       Weissmann, J. and Kenworthy, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-SC-973 | December 4, 2023        Page 11 of 11