Ruth Gammons v. John Caleb Marling and Alyssa Marling (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 20 2018, 9:53 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Ruth Gammons Anah Hewetson Gouty
Westport, Indiana Pittman Law Firm
Bedford, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ruth Gammons, November 20, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-PL-145
v. Appeal from the Jefferson Circuit
Court
John Caleb Marling and Alyssa The Honorable Darrell M. Auxier,
Marling, Judge
Appellees-Plaintiffs Trial Court Cause No.
39C01-1702-PL-122
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-145 | November 20, 2018 Page 1 of 3
[1] Ruth Gammons appeals the trial court’s order denying her motion to set aside a
default judgment entered on April 18, 2017, in favor of John Caleb Marling and
Alyssa Marling. We note that although Gammons was represented by counsel
below, she has chosen to proceed pro se on appeal. It is well settled that pro se
litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. Twin Lakes
Reg'l Sewer Dist. v. Teumer, 992 N.E.2d 744, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 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. Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). These
consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent argument on appeal.
Id. While we prefer to decide issues on the merits, where the appellant’s
noncompliance with appellate rules is so substantial as to impede our
consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived. Perry v.
Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied (2015), cert. denied (2015). We will not become an “advocate for a party,
or address arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly developed or
expressed to be understood.” Id.[2] Although failure to comply with the appellate rules does not necessarily result
in waiver of the issues presented, it is appropriate where, as here, such
noncompliance impedes our review. In re Moeder, 27 N.E.3d 1089, 1097 n.4
(Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Because it would be quite cumbersome for
us to restate all the appellate rules that Gammons has violated, we will simply
say that her appellant’s brief fails to comply in numerous respects with Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-145 | November 20, 2018 Page 2 of 3
Appellate Rule 46. Most significantly, Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)
requires that contentions in an appellant’s brief be supported by cogent
reasoning and citations to authorities, statutes, and the appendix or parts of the
record on appeal. Failure to comply with this rule results in waiver of an
argument on appeal. Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277, 297 (Ind. 2012).
[3] Gammons’s brief consists primarily of rambling and disorganized statements.
Gammons does not cite to a single legal authority, nor does her principal brief
contain a single accurate citation to the transcript of the trial court proceedings
or to the order being appealed. In sum, her noncompliance with the appellate
rules has resulted in the waiver of her claim. Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court’s order.1
[4] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
1
In addition to denying Gammons’s motion to set aside the default judgment, the trial court’s order modified
the default judgment in certain respects in Gammons’s favor. We affirm the order in its totality.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-145 | November 20, 2018 Page 3 of 3