Moody v. Wellman, LLP (pdf) is a Not for Publication opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. (“Not for Publication” means it’s not to be cited as precedent — I’m not violating any state secrets by giving out the link). It’s a simple landlord tenant dispute with a tenant who wasn’t represented by counsel. It doesn’t break any new legal ground, but I thought I’d flag it as a nice little snapshot of a case in the life of a small claims court.
It illustrates the ability of a person to tie up a case without having a lawyer or a defense to speak of. He just filed paper after paper alleging one thing or another: he’s looking for a lawyer; the court should appoint him a lawyer; the judge is biased; he needs another continuance, etc. When, a year after the case was filed, it finally got time for him to explain why he didn’t owe the money, he had nothing to say. Cases like this shed a bit of light on why small claims courts can be a little abrupt with litigants and why small claims practitioners can become a little jaded to the people they sue. That doesn’t make it right, of course. I still try to separate the people merely stalling for time from the people with legitimate disputes. I’m sure I don’t always succeed, but it’s worth trying.
The advantage and disadvantage of Small Claims Court: Other than offers and privilege, the regular division Rules of Evidence don’t apply. Small Claims Court can essentially be a forum for Defendants to speak on just about any subject. Most Small Claims Judges and Magistrates tolerate about 10 minutes of drivel before they cut the Defendant off.
I’m surprised this Defendant didn’t more clearly claim that he was so mentally ill (incompetent) that he couldn’t have entered into any contract and be held liable. Kind of like a drunk who claims the bar should have cut him (the drunk) off before the drunk suffered alcohol poisoning from drinking too much.