Jeffrey Griebel v. Lehsa Griebel

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 12 2013, 6:01 am
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE:
JEFFREY GRIEBEL
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JEFFREY GRIEBEL, )
)
Appellant, )
)
vs. ) No. 53A04-1304-DR-191
)
LEHSA GRIEBEL, )
)
Appellee. )
APPEAL FROM THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Douglas R. Bridges, Senior Judge
Cause No. 53C06-0306-DR-344
September 12, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge
Case Summary
Pro-se Appellant Jeffrey Griebel (“Father”) challenges a child support order regarding
his children with Lehsa Griebel (“Mother”). Father articulates no specific issue for review
but requests several modifications of the order. Without a transcript or statement of
evidence, we lack a basis for review of Father’s general contentions as to factual error. We
dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
On April 1, 2011, Mother filed a petition to modify child support and healthcare
insurance. Her petition alleged that she and Father were the parents of three minor children,
Mother’s employment had been terminated, and she could not provide healthcare insurance
for the children.
Pursuant to an Agreed Modification Order dated October 13, 2011, Father was
awarded temporary physical custody of one daughter and Mother retained physical custody of
two daughters. Father was ordered to pay child support of $274 weekly,1 50% of extra-
curricular activities, and a proportional income-based share of uninsured medical expenses.
On April 20, 2012, Father filed a petition for modification of child support. After an
unsuccessful referral to mediation and the resolution of some discovery issues, the matter
was set for a contested hearing. On October 29, 2012, a hearing was conducted. The
chronological case summary includes the notation: “Parties waived record.” (App. 11.)
According to Father, the entry “is a lie.” (Appellant’s Br. at 9.)
1
He was given credit for $80 weekly payment on marital debt; thus, the withholding order was issued for
$194.00 weekly.
2
On March 18, 2013, the trial court increased Father’s child support by $35 – to $309
weekly ($229 after credit for payment on marital debt). Father was also ordered to pay 77%
of the children’s uninsured healthcare expenses and 50% of the extra-curricular expenses.
Father appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Father does not articulate a specific issue for appellate review. Rather, he asserts in
the argument portion of his brief that his income was over-stated by Mother’s counsel, there
was an insufficient change to support modification, Mother did not satisfactorily prove the
amount of uninsured medical expenses, the chronological case summary reflected a lie, and
Mother perjured herself. He requests specific relief: the return of $1,554.19 paid for medical
expenses, “dropping of the requirement to pay extra-curricular expenses and the return of all
such expenses previously paid,” child support remaining at the prior level of $194 per week,
no requirement to pay attorney’s fees, Mother’s assumption of 100% of the health care costs
for the children in her physical custody, and finally, in the event of a re-trial, that it be
conducted before Judge Hill as opposed to Judge Bridges. (Appellant’s Br. at 12.)
No transcript of the October 29, 2012 hearing exists.2 Moreover, Father admittedly
did not comply with Appellate Rule 31(A), which provides:
If no Transcript of all or part of the evidence is available, a party or the party’s
attorney may prepare a verified statement of the evidence from the best
available sources, which may include the party’s or the attorney’s recollection.
The party shall then file a motion to certify the statement of evidence with the
2
We believe the trial court should rethink its policy in allowing parties to waive a record in matters such as
these.
3
trial court or Administrative Agency. The statement of evidence shall be
attached to the motion.
Griebel has also failed to comply with Appellate Rule 46, which requires, in relevant
part, a table of authorities and a concise and particular description of issues presented for
review. He has failed to support his general claims of error with appropriate citation to
relevant authorities. Moreover, despite making claims of perjury, fraud on the court, and
attorney misrepresentation, he has wholly failed to provide a record to support any contention
of factual error.
In light of the foregoing, we dismiss Father’s appeal. See Hughes v. King, 808
N.E.2d 146, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (observing that, where the appellate court lacks a basis
upon which to review substantive issues on the merits, dismissal is appropriate).
Dismissed.
MAY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
4