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. APPELLANT PRO SE: ROGER CURTSINGER Milroy, Indiana

FILED
Apr 21 2009, 9:31 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ROGER CURTSINGER, Appellant-Defendant, vs. DON ROBY, Appellee-Plaintiff

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 32A05-0811-CV-677

APPEAL FROM THE HENDRICKS SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Mark Smith, Judge Cause No. 32D04-0808-SC-565

April 21, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY, Judge

Roger Curtsinger appeals the judgment in favor of his landlord, Don Roby. Curtsinger argues the trial court erred in its calculation of the rent owed and in its determination Roby did not have to return his security deposit. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Curtsinger leased a property from Roby for $819.00 per month. The lease was to run from September 11, 2007 to August 30, 2008. Curtsinger paid $2,941.00 up front. An invoice breaks this figure into four categories: $1,791.00 for "rent pay down," $150.00 for a "pet deposit," $700.00 for a "security deposit," and $300.00 for "pet damage." (Defendant's Ex. A.) Curtsinger paid $425.00 in July and moved out on July 28, 2008. Roby sued for the rest of the July and August rent. Curtsinger counterclaimed for return of his security deposit. At trial, the parties disputed the purpose of the $1,791.00 "rent pay down." Curtsinger argued this figure represented the first and last months' rent. Roby argued the money had been applied to reduce each month's rent to $819.00. The parties also disputed whether the first month's rent had been prorated to reflect that the lease began on September 11. Curtsinger believed he had paid a full month's rent in September, and he asserted that was the reason he had made a partial payment in July. The trial court awarded $975.00 for the remaining rent due for July and for twenty-two days in August,1 $99.00 in court costs, and post-judgment interest. The trial

1

Roby was able to re-let the premises on August 22.

2

court ruled against Curtsinger on his counterclaim, finding there was no evidence Curtsinger gave Roby written notice of his forwarding address. DISCUSSION AND DECISION As a preliminary matter, we note Roby has not filed a brief. We do not undertake the burden of developing arguments for the appellee. Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Kimberly Mobile Home Park, Inc., 780 N.E.2d 852, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Applying a less stringent standard of review, we may reverse the trial court when the appellant establishes prima facie error. "Prima facie" is defined as "at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it." Still, we are obligated to correctly apply the law to the facts in the record in order to determine whether reversal is required. Id. (citations omitted). 1. Security Deposit

Curtsinger's counterclaim appears to be based on Ind. Code

Download Roger Curtsinger v. Don Roby.pdf

Indiana Law