Jeffrey C. Sharp v. Shiela D. (Sharp) Scott (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jan 17 2020, 8:51 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Jeffrey C. Sharp Donald W. Shelmon
Frankfort, Indiana Rensselaer, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeffrey C. Sharp, January 17, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-DR-2131
v. Appeal from the Jasper Circuit
Court
Shiela D. (Sharp) Scott, The Honorable Rex W. Kepner,
Appellee-Petitioner. Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
37C01-1410-DR-874
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Jeffrey C. Sharp (“Husband”), pro se, appeals the trial court’s entry of an order
on a rule to show cause in which the court appointed an individual to sell
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2131 | January 17, 2020 Page 1 of 7
certain parcels of real estate in the country of Belize. Husband raises six issues
for our review, which we revise and restate as the following two issues:
1. Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to
order the sale of real property in Belize.
2. Whether the trial court denied Husband due process when
it prohibited him from objecting to the sale of the real
property.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Husband and Shiela Sharp (“Wife”) were married on September 8, 1994. 1 In
2005, Husband and Wife purchased three parcels of real property in the country
of Belize. On October 28, 2015, following the entry of a dissolution decree, the
trial court issued an order in which it divided the parties’ assets. In particular,
the court awarded two of the properties located in Belize to Wife and one of the
properties to Husband.
[4] In October 2016, the court appointed a commissioner to execute documents
related to the real property. At some point following the court’s appointment of
the commissioner, Husband sold one of the properties that the court had
awarded to Wife. Thereafter, both Husband and Wife filed motions for rule to
1
The only document Husband has provided in the record on appeal is the transcript from the hearing on the
motion for rule to show cause. Accordingly, our statement of the facts is limited to the facts that can be
ascertained from that transcript.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2131 | January 17, 2020 Page 2 of 7
show cause with the trial court. Following a hearing on the motions, the court
entered an order in which the court, in relevant part, appointed an individual to
sell the remaining two properties in Belize. The court further ordered that
“neither of the parties . . . shall take any actions nor allow any other person,
representative, attorney or agent to take actions to restrict or object to the sale of
said parcels of real estate.” Appealed Order at 1. 2 This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Husband appeals the trial court’s order on the motions for rule to show cause.
We first note that Husband is proceeding pro se. “It is well settled that pro se
litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. This means
that pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and
must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Basic v.
Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal citation
omitted).
Issue One: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
[6] Husband first asserts that the trial court erred when it appointed a
commissioner to execute documents related to the real property and when it
appointed an individual to sell the property in Belize. Specifically, Husband
contends that the trial court erred because the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over the real property. As this Court has recently stated, “[w]hether
2
Husband has not provided an appendix in his record on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2131 | January 17, 2020 Page 3 of 7
a trial court has jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Edwards v. Edwards, 132 N.E.3d 391, 395 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
[7] On appeal, Husband contends that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
in Belize and, accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to appoint the
commissioner to execute documents and to appoint a person to sell the
properties. Husband maintains that, because the court lacked jurisdiction, the
court’s act of appointing those individuals constituted fraud, which fraud
“precipitated the crimes of: theft, wire fraud[,] and collusion of mail fraud.”
Appellant’s Br. at 7. However, we hold that Husband has failed to meet his
burden on appeal to demonstrate that the court lacked jurisdiction over the
properties.
[8] It is well settled that the Indiana Appellate Rules require an appellant to include
in his brief an argument section that “contain[s] the contentions of the appellant
on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must
be supported by citation to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts
of the Record on appeal relied on[.]” Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Cogent
argument supported by adequate citation to authority “promotes impartiality in
the appellate tribunal. A court which must search the record and make up its
own arguments because a party has not adequately presented them runs the risk
of becoming an advocate rather than an adjudicator.” Young v. Butts, 685
N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). We will not address arguments so
poorly developed or expressed that they cannot be understood. Basic, 58
N.E.3d at 984 (quotation marks omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2131 | January 17, 2020 Page 4 of 7
[9] Here, Husband’s argument wholly fails to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule
46(A)(8)(a). Husband has not provided any argument to explain why the court,
which had jurisdiction over the marriage, lacked jurisdiction over the marital
property. Nor has husband provided any argument to explain how the trial
court’s appointment of the individuals to execute documents or to sell the
properties constituted fraud, theft, wire fraud, or mail fraud. Further, Husband
has not provided a single citation to the record or legal authorities to support his
assertions.3 As a result, Husband has not met his burden on appeal to
demonstrate that that trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
properties.
Issue Two: Due Process
[10] Husband next asserts that the trial court denied him due process. “Whether a
party was denied due process is a question of law that we review de novo.”
Hilligoss v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1228, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Husband
specifically contends that the trial court denied him due process when it
prohibited him from objecting to the sale of the real estate in Belize. However,
we again hold that Husband has failed to comply with our Appellate Rules and,
as such, has failed to meet his burden on appeal on this issue.
3
In this Statement of the Facts, Husband contends that the court violated Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-9.1
and his constitutional rights when it appointed a commissioner to execute documents related to the
properties. However, Husband has not provided any argument in his argument section as to how the court’s
actions violated that statute or his constitutional rights.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2131 | January 17, 2020 Page 5 of 7
[11] Husband’s entire argument on this issue is as follows:
Whether the Court committed reversible error when it denied
Mr. Sharp due process is not in question. Judge Kepner’s order,
in and of itself, documents the denial of due process. “No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process.” On August 19, 2019, Judge Kepner issued an Order in
this case, that in particular reads as follows: “2. That neither
parties [sic], being Shiela D. (Sharp) Scott or Jeffrey C. Sharp
shall take any actions nor allow any other person, representative,
attorney or agent to take any actions to restrict or object to the
sale of said parcels of real estate.”
Appellant’s Br. at 6 (emphasis in original).
[12] Husband’s argument wholly fails to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule
46(A)(8)(a). Husband has simply asserted, without more, that the court
violated his due process rights. Husband makes no argument to explain how
the trial court’s order might have denied him due process. Further, Husband
does not provide a single citation to legal authority that might support such an
argument. Accordingly, Husband has failed to meet his burden on appeal to
demonstrate that the trial court denied him his due process rights. 4
4
Husband also briefly asserts that the trial court’s October 2015 order dividing the marital assets was
erroneous because the cause number on the second page of the order was missing four digits. However,
Husband has not provided a copy of that allegedly erroneous order in his record on appeal. Accordingly, he
has not met his burden to demonstrate that the trial court erred when it issued that order. In any event,
Husband has not made any argument, let alone cogent argument, to explain how that alleged error might
constitute reversible error. See App. R. 66(A).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2131 | January 17, 2020 Page 6 of 7
[13] In sum, Husband has failed to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate
Procedure and, as such, has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that
the trial court erred. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
[14] Affirmed.
Vaidik, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2131 | January 17, 2020 Page 7 of 7