Paul Esparza v. Denis Lynch ( 2012 )

FILED
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before May 25 2012, 8:57 am
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
APPELLANT PRO SE:
PAUL ESPARZA
Knox, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
PAUL ESPARZA, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 75A04-1104-SC-184
)
DENIS LYNCH, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE STARKE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Kim Hall, Judge
The Honorable Jeanene Calabrese, Magistrate
Cause No. 75C01-0908-SC-513
May 25, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Paul Esparza appeals the court’s judgment of $1,000.00 in favor of Denis Lynch.
Esparza alleges the trial court and county clerk violated multiple sections of the “Indiana
Rules of Court, Small Claims and the Indiana Trial Rules of Court under Indiana Code §33-
34[.]” (Br. of Appellant at 4.) We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 13, 2009, Lynch filed an action in small claims court against Esparza. The
record does not contain a copy of the original complaint, though the court’s order indicates
Lynch sued Esparza for destruction of his personal property and Esparza later counter-
claimed for unpaid rent. The trial court held hearings on September 29, October 19, and
December 8, 2009. On December 8, the trial court entered an order awarding Lynch $500.00
plus costs.
On April 30, 2010, the trial court overturned its original order “based upon the
allegation in the Verified Motion to Correct Errors [filed by Esparza] with regard to the
submission of untruthful evidence at trial.” (App. at 5.) The trial court held hearings on
August 3, September 20, and December 6, 2010, and February 7, 2011. On March 16, the
trial court entered an order awarding Lynch $1,000.00 plus costs and interest.1
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Lynch did not file an appellee’s brief. When an appellee does not submit a brief, we
do not undertake the burden of developing arguments for that party. Thurman v. Thurman,
1
The trial court awarded Lynch $6,000.00 in damages, and Esparza $5,000.00 in damages; the trial court
ordered Esparza to pay the $1,000.00 difference to Lynch.
2
777 N.E.2d 41, 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Instead, we apply a less stringent standard of review
and may reverse if the appellant establishes prima facie error. Id. Prima facie error is “error
at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Van Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858
N.E.2d 216, 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same standard as licensed
attorneys, and are required to follow procedural rules. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344
(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) states: “The argument
must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent
reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to authorities, statutes, and the
Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied upon[.]” Failure to present a cogent
argument results in waiver of the issue on appeal. Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1025
(Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Esparza cites a plethora of rules in his Statement of Issues and in various parts of his
brief, but he has not developed cogent arguments regarding any trial court error. Nor has he
cited case law that would indicate reversal is appropriate. His arguments are therefore
waived, and we accordingly affirm the trial court’s decision.
Affirmed.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
3