Jeffrey Lambert v. Jill Fox (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
court except for the purpose of establishing Apr 19 2017, 9:56 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE APPELLEE PRO SE
Jeffrey Lambert, Jill Fox
Indianapolis, Indiana Franklin, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeffrey Lambert, April 19, 2017
Appellant-Plaintiff Court of Appeals Case No.
32A04-1611-DR-2552
v. Appeal from the Hendricks
Superior Court
Jill Fox, The Honorable Matthew G.
Appellee-Defendant. Hanson, Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
32D01-0207-DR-104
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1611-DR-2552 | April 19, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Appellant-Plaintiff Jeffrey Lambert appeals a ruling by the trial court which
ordered Lambert and his ex-wife Appellee-Defendant Jill Fox to split two-thirds
of their children’s college expenses. Because Lambert has waived his claims
relating to the issues presented on appeal by failing to provide us with a cogent
argument or citations to authority sufficient to review his claims, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] While Lambert and Fox were married, they had two children together. At
some point while the children were still minors, a dissolution was filed. A
dissolution decree was entered on September 20, 2004. On October 6, 2016, the
trial court issued an order addressing numerous issues, including the fact that
the parties were to split two-thirds of the children’s college expenses so long as
the children maintained a grade point average of 2.75 or higher.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Lambert contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay 1/3 of the
college expenses. Specifically, Lambert argues that the trial court’s ruling was
contrary to a modified dissolution decree. Further, Lambert asserts that the
two-thirds of the college expenses should be split between the parties by the
same percentages as child support instead of equally. We conclude, however,
that Lambert’s arguments are waived for failure to provide us with a cogent
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1611-DR-2552 | April 19, 2017 Page 2 of 4
argument and failure to cite relevant authorities. Indiana Rule of Appellate
Procedure 46(A) provides, in part, as follows:
(2) Table of Authorities. The table of authorities shall list each case,
statute, rule, and other authority cited in the brief, with references
to each page on which it is cited. The authorities shall be listed
alphabetically or numerically, as applicable.
****
(8) Argument. This section shall contain the appellant’s
contentions why the trial court or Administrative Agency
committed reversible error.
(a) 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 the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of
the Record on Appeal relied on, in accordance with Rule
22.
Among other deficiencies, Lambert’s brief contains no table of authorities, no
statement of the facts, no citations to any statutory or case law, and no
statement regarding the applicable standard of review.
[4] It is well settled that we will not consider an appellant’s assertion
on appeal when he or she has not presented cogent argument
supported by authority and references to the record as required
by the rules. Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2003). We will not become an advocate for a party, and we
will not address arguments that are either inappropriate, too
poorly developed, or improperly expressed to be understood. Id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1611-DR-2552 | April 19, 2017 Page 3 of 4
Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Lambert’s
appellate brief falls short of what the Appellate rules require. Therefore,
his claims are waived for our consideration.
[5] The judgement of the trial court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1611-DR-2552 | April 19, 2017 Page 4 of 4