Preview:

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.

FILED
Nov 25 2009, 8:32 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

APPELLANT PRO SE: GARY W. MOODY Franklin, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KATHERINE J. NOEL Noel Law Kokomo, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GARY MOODY, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. WELLMAN GROUP, LLP Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 41A01-0906-CV-264

APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Jane Spencer Craney, Special Judge Cause No. 41D03-0802-SC-146

November 25, 2009

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge

Gary Moody appeals from a small claims judgment in favor of Wellman Group, LLC (Wellman), Moodys former landlord, for unpaid rent and damages. Proceeding pro se, Moody presents the following consolidated and restated issues for review: 1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Moodys requests for the appointment of counsel? Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Moodys third request for a continuance? Did the trial court improperly accept testimony from an unsworn witness? Did the trial court and its staff exhibit bias and unprofessional conduct toward Moody?

2.

3.

4.

We affirm. This small claims, landlord-tenant matter began on February 20, 2008, when Wellman filed a claim for possession and rent due. Following a hearing regarding possession, Wellman was granted possession and gained said possession on or about March 28, 2008. A separate damages hearing was scheduled for April 28, 2008. While awaiting the damages hearing, Moody filed a number of pro-se motions and pleadings with the trial court. Among these were a petition for a jury trial and a counterclaim.1 Moodys request for a jury trial was denied. On two occasions, Moodys request for a continuance of the damages hearing was granted, with the second request not being made until the day of the hearing. Following the second continuance, the hearing was rescheduled for July 3, 2008. As a result of

correspondence from Moody apparently indicating that he had filed a disciplinary complaint
1

The nature of Moodys counterclaim is unknown, as he has not included it in his appendix.

against the magistrate assigned to the case, the magistrate recused on June 17. After multiple issues regarding the selection of a judge, the Honorable Jane Spencer Craney filed a qualification of special judge on November 24, 2008. The hearing on damages, as well as Moodys counterclaim, was then set for February 24, 2009. On or about February 5, 2009, Moody was informed in writing that he would not be provided with assistance through the Johnson County Legal Aid Program. Therefore, on February 6, Moody filed a Motion Requesting Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, claiming that he was indigent and had made diligent effort to obtain the assistance of counsel by contacting legal aid organizations. Moodys motion was denied by the court that same day. Moody then filed a Motion Requesting Continuance on February 18, claiming that his unsuccessful search for pro bono counsel had left him unable to prepare in the short period remaining before the scheduled hearing. The trial court denied this motion the day after it was filed. At the hearing on February 24, once again Moody requested a continuance and the appointment of counsel. After thoroughly addressing the matter with Moody, the trial court denied his requests. Wellman then presented evidence regarding unpaid rent and other damages. Moody refused to present his case in light of the courts refusal to appoint counsel and grant a continuance. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Wellman in the amount of $1296.66 and found against Moody on his counterclaim "due to failure to present evidence." Appendix at 10.

3

1. Moody initially challenges the trial courts refusal to appoint counsel for him in this small claims case. In this regard, Moody claims that he was entitled to counsel because he is mentally ill and "this is an extremely complex case which may involve significant precedent in landlord-tenant law." Appellant's Brief at 7. Moody, however, neither elaborates on the extent of his mental illness2 nor on the alleged complexities of this landlord-tenant dispute. Ind. Code Ann.

Download Gary Moody v. Wellman Group.pdf

Indiana Law