Crone, J.
Case Summary
Dyamond Harris appeals the trial court’s judgment and writ of possession in favor of Lafayette LIHTC, LP, on its claim against Harris for unpaid rent. Harris contends that the trial court committed clear error by improperly shifting the burden of proof and violated her due process right to an impartial decision maker. We agree on both counts and therefore reverse.
….
Notwithstanding our reversal of the trial court’s judgment, we also address Harris’s argument that she was denied her due process right to an impartial decision maker. Our review of the transcript leads us to agree with Harris.
….
Here, the trial court asked questions and made comments throughout both hearings that were improper. The trial court asked Harris, “Who else is paying your rent? Somebody is paying rent. Me as a taxpayer? …. [What] is it about you that requires Section 8 housing such that you can’t keep track of thirty-eight dollars?” Tr. Vol. 2 at 6 (emphases added). The trial court told Harris, “Okay, if they say you owe thirty-eight dollars for February just pay them the thirty-eight to get it done.” Id. at 7. In a similar vein, the trial court repeatedly asked Harris why she did not pay the $38.00 to “just get it done.” Id. at 13. The trial court also commented, “You have people who don’t work and free apartments[,] and the rest of us have to work to pay for it. That’s one of the problems in our country.” Id. at 12. The trial court asked Harris, “Why are you not paying rent? I pay rent. I pay a mortgage. Why don’t you.” …. So [you] don’t work you get free rent? …. What a country, what a country.” Id. at 25 (emphases added). Lafayette contends that “none” of the trial court’s comments are “disparaging” of any person. Appellee’s Br. at 17. We disagree. The questions and comments belittle Harris for living in government-subsidized housing and not paying Lafayette $38.00.
We conclude that the trial court failed to preside over the hearing as a neutral, impartial decision maker in violation of Harris’s due process rights. The trial court’s actions and demeanor “‘crossed the barrier of impartiality and prejudiced’” Harris’s case. [Footnote omitted.] See Richardson, 34 N.E.3d at 703-04 (quoting Flowers v. State, 738 N.E.2d 1051, 1061 (Ind. 2000)). Accordingly, even if we were not reversing the judgment based on the trial court’s error regarding the burden of proof, we would reverse and order a new hearing by an impartial judge. [Footnote omitted.]
Reversed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.