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
Aug 10 2009, 8:54 am
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
APPELLANTS PRO SE:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
JEFFREY HOLEWINSKI
MICHELLE HOLEWINSKI
Monticello, Indiana
KURTIS G. FOUTS
Delphi, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JEFFREY HOLEWINSKI and
MICHELLE HOLEWINSKI,
Appellants,
vs.
THE LANDINGS HOMEOWNER’S
ASSOCIATION,
Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 08A04-0902-CV-101
APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Jeffrey R. Smith, Judge
Cause No. 08D01-0807-SC-187
August 10, 2009
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge
The Landings Homeowner’s Association (“the HOA”) sued Jeffrey and Michelle
Holewinski (“the Holewinskis”) in small claims court for unpaid HOA dues.
The
Holewinskis counterclaimed for $700 or the return of a computer loaned to the HOA, and
requested that the small claims court “order repair of common area property.” (Appellee’s
App. 3.) The Holewinskis also filed third-party claims seeking the removal of four HOA
officers.
At a hearing conducted on November 20, 2008, the HOA agreed to return the
Holewinski’s computer and the Holewinskis agreed to pay delinquent HOA dues. Jeffrey
Holewinski testified that certain areas of the housing complex, specifically, a seawall and a
staircase, were in a deteriorating condition and needed timely repair.
Judgment was entered against the Holewinskis for $2,670 plus attorney’s fees and
court costs. However, the small claims court dismissed the remaining claims, stating that the
court lacked jurisdiction to order the equitable relief sought by the Holewinskis, i.e.,
performance of specific repairs or the removal of the HOA officers.
The Holewinskis appeal pro se, citing no legal authority, but claiming it is inequitable
that they should have to pay HOA dues while the common areas of their housing complex are
not adequately maintained. As best we can discern, they disagree with the small claims
court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to order the equitable relief sought by the
Holewinskis.
Indiana Code Section 33-29-2-4(b) provides small claims courts have jurisdiction
over:
2
(1)
(2)
(3)
Civil actions in which the amount sought or value of the property
sought to be recovered is not more than six thousand dollars ($6,000). . .
Possessory actions between landlord and tenant in which the rent due at
the time the action is filed does not exceed six thousand dollars
($6,000).
Emergency possessory actions between a landlord and tenant under IC
32-31-6.
The jurisdiction of a small claims division of a superior court is limited to that which is
granted by the Indiana Constitution or statute. Buckmaster v. Platter, 426 N.E.2d 148, 150
(Ind. Ct. App. 1981). A small claims court may award limited damages, but does not have
power to award injunctive relief apart from the statute. Olympus Props., LLC v. Plotzker,
888 N.E.2d 334, 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). As such, the small claims court correctly
determined that it lacked jurisdiction to order the HOA to perform certain repairs requested
by the Holewinskis or to remove HOA officers. The dismissal of the equitable claims was
appropriate.
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
3