Barnes, J.
Case Summary
Abdullah Alkhalidi appeals the small claims court’s granting of a motion to dismiss filed by the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). We reverse and remand.
Issues
Alkhalidi raises two issues, which we restate as:
I. whether the small claims court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide his replevin claim; and
II. whether Alkhalidi was required to prove that he exhausted his administrative remedies.
….
As an initial matter, we address the small claims court’s conclusion that Alkhalidi’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. …
….
Then, in First American Title Insurance Co. v. Robertson, 19 N.E.3d 757, 760 (Ind. 2014), amended on reh’g, 27 N.E.3d 768, our supreme court summarily affirmed “that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that the exhaustion of administrative remedies under AOPA is a procedural error and does not implicate the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” The DOC contends that it is still unclear whether the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction because First American only summarily affirmed our court’s analysis of subject matter jurisdiction. However, we believe that our supreme court’s distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and procedural error in K.S. and its summary affirmation in First American indicates that the failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be treated as procedural error. Thus, the small claims court erroneously considered the failure to exhaust administrative remedies as a jurisdictional defect.
Here, there is no dispute that a small claims court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a replevin action for $419.34. Thus, contrary to its conclusion, the small claims court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide Alkhalidi’s claim.
….
… Because exhaustion of remedies is not an element of Alkhalidi’s replevin action, the exhaustion requirement is more appropriately considered an affirmative defense. See Willis v. Westerfield, 839 N.E.2d 1179, 1185 (Ind. 2006) (explaining that an affirmative defense raises matters outside the scope of the prima facie case as opposed to controverting an element of a plaintiff’s prima facie case). The proponent of an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof. Id. Accordingly, we conclude that the DOC, not Alkhalidi, had the burden of proving that Alkhalidi failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
….
Conclusion
The small claims court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Alkhalidi’s replevin claim. The DOC, not Alkhalidi, had the burden of proving that Alkhalidi failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his claim. Because the DOC did not prove such, the small claims court erroneously dismissed Alkhalidi’s claim. We reverse and remand.
Reversed and remanded.
Kirsch, J., and Najam, J., concur.