Baker, S.J.
Statement of the Case
Daniel and Adela Wegert filed a small claims eviction action against James A. Abbott, claiming they owned the house in which he was living, but he had refused to execute a lease. In response, Abbott argued he was not a tenant, but was instead buying the house on contract from the same people who had sold the house to the Wegerts. The small claims court found for the Wegerts and issued an order for eviction.
On appeal, Abbott argues the small claims court lacked jurisdiction to resolve the parties’ dispute. Concluding Abbott is correct, we reverse and remand with instructions.
….
In September 2023, the Wegerts filed an eviction case against Abbott. The case was assigned to the Miami Superior Court’s small claims docket, and the small claims court held an evidentiary hearing. During the hearing, Daniel Wegert testified Abbott was the Andersons’ tenant and claimed he had not heard about Abbott’s purchase agreement until after he bought the house. By contrast, Abbott testified he was buying the house on contract and that he had tried to warn the Wegerts that the Andersons could not sell it.
The court issued an order of eviction. In the order, the court acknowledged Abbott claimed to be a purchaser of the property under the purchase agreement. But the court concluded the Wegerts were entitled to possession of the property as “bona fide purchasers.”…
Abbott argues the small claims court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the parties are disputing ownership of the property….
….
Here, the evidence shows the house is worth more than $10,000. And this is not a possessory action between a landlord and a tenant. Rather, the Wegerts and Abbott dispute who is entitled to ownership of the house, citing competing sale documents. As a result, the parties’ dispute falls outside the jurisdiction granted to small claims courts under Indiana Code section 33-29-2-4(b). See Welch v. 1106 Traub Trust, 204 N.E.3d 243, 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (small claims court did not err in transferring case to superior court; plaintiff claimed case concerned eviction of a tenant and back rent, but the parties’ contract was more complex than simple lease); see also Vic’s Antiques and Uniques, Inc. v. J. Elra Holdingz, LLC, 143 N.E.3d 300, 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), (vacating order of possession; parties had a land sale contract, not a lease, so small claims court lacked jurisdiction over dispute), trans. denied. The small claims court’s order of eviction is void, and the parties’ dispute must be resolved by the superior court on its plenary docket. We express no opinion on the merits of the dispute.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions to transfer the case to the superior court’s plenary docket.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Vaidik, J., and Felix, J., concur