MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] John Blaylock and Stephanie Blaylock, pro se, appeal the small claims courts entry of judgment against them in the amount of $675. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Russell Harkness signed a proposal dated November 18, 2019, to perform certain drywall and framing work for $1,000, to be paid upon completion, and John Blaylock signed to accept the proposal. On November 26, 2019, Harkness filed a Notice of Claim.
[3] On December 20, 2019, the small claims court held a hearing. Harkness testified that he was contracted to install drywall and framing, completed the job, and was paid that day. He indicated the Blaylocks “werent exactly happy with a few things,” that he went back three times before he learned they had placed a stop payment on the check, and at that point he told them that he could not do any more work until he was paid. Transcript Volume II at 4. He indicated the check was for $1,000 and he was seeking that amount plus court costs.
[4] Stephanie Blaylock testified that Harkness was supposed to start the work on November 18, 2019, and they were told it was a two to three day job. She testified that, on that day, Harkness sent a text that he was obtaining supplies and would begin the work the following day. She indicated that, on November 19, 2020, Harkness arrived and “completed the job from his account,” and her husband gave Harkness a check. Id. at 6. She stated that she spoke with her husband on the phone and said she was not sure how the job could have been completed in that amount of time. Stephanie testified that, when she arrived home, she observed the work was not completed. She stated that she and her husband stopped payment on the check and that they informed Harkness they would pay him once the job was completed. She indicated Harkness returned on November 20th and did some work, that Harkness was supposed to return on November 25th and that he arrived, said he was not going to do any further work until they paid him in full, and collected his items and left.
[5] Stephanie further testified, “[a]s you can see in the pictures, there is mud on the ceiling that was never sanded,” “per the contract it stated the work would be completed, that we would be able to paint as soon as he was completed,” “[n]owhere in either one of the ceilings of what he did a [sic] completed job by his standard – we were not able to paint,” and “[w]e werent able to proceed.” Id. at 7. She stated: “We actually, as you can see also in the information provided, we had to contract out to another drywall contractor to have it completed so we could move forward with the project.” Id. at 7-8. The court asked “[h]ow much did that cost to get completed,” and John Blaylock responded “I believe its stated 325 on the receipt that you have.” Id. at 8. Harkness stated “I just would like to get paid for my work.” Id. at 9.
[6] The court admitted photographs of the premises, text messages, and a receipt dated December 9, 2019, for drywall repair for $325. The court entered judgment in favor of Harkness in the amount of $675 plus court costs and a Sherriffs fee.
Discussion
[7] Judgments in small claims actions are subject to review as prescribed by Indiana rules and statutes. Eagle Aircraft, Inc. v. Trojnar, 983 N.E.2d 648, 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In the appellate review of claims tried by the bench without a jury, the reviewing court shall not set aside the judgment unless clearly erroneous. Id. The appellate tribunal does not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses but considers only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. Id. We presume the court correctly applied the law. Id.
[8] The Blaylocks argue “[t]he initial bill was for $325.00, on 12/9/2019, to complete one area of incompletion” and “[w]hile [they] understand the initial judgement [sic] for [Harkness] of $675.00, which would equal $1,000.00 if the second contrator [sic] payment of $325.00 was subtracted, the courts were not aware the full job was still not complete, and the contractor had to come back a second time for completion.” Appellants’ Brief at 4. They argue “[t]his date of completion was on 1/8/2020, for a payment of $835.00, for [Harknesss] unfinished work, totaling payment of $1,160.00, to new contractor.” Id.
[9] Our review of an award of damages is limited. Crider & Crider, Inc. v. Downen, 873 N.E.2d 1115, 1118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). A damage award must be supported by probative evidence. Id. A damage award must be referenced to some fairly defined standard, such as the cost of repair, market value, established experience, rental value, loss of use, loss of profits, or direct inference from known circumstances. Id. We reverse an award of damages only when it is not within the scope of the evidence before the finder of fact. Id.
[10] The record reveals the small claims court entered judgment in favor of Harkness in the amount of $675 plus costs. The court heard evidence the Blaylocks agreed to pay Harkness $1,000 for certain drywall and framing work and they paid another contractor $325 to complete the work. They introduced a handwritten note stating “I Joe ․ from Joes Drywall service came on 12-9-19 had to Repair Drywall on celing [sic] & texture was not compleat [sic]” and a receipt with the same date signed by Joe showing the Blaylocks paid $325 for “Drywall Repair & texture.” Exhibits at 16. The Blaylocks did not testify or submit evidence at the December 20, 2019 hearing regarding any other payments they made to complete the work.
[11] Based upon the record, we cannot conclude the judgment of the small claims court is clearly erroneous. See Blade Corp. v. Am. Drywall, Inc., 400 N.E.2d 1183, 1186-1187 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (holding the owner had a right of set-off against the contractor as to any monies owed to the owner by the contractor as a result of the contractors breach of contract and damages for breach of contract can be measured by the actual cost of completion).
[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.
[13] Affirmed.
Brown, Judge.
Vaidik, J., and Pyle, J., concur.