RAMIREZ v. ROBINSON (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Corrie Ramirez (“Ramirez”) appeals from the small claims court's order granting judgment in favor of Charles T. Robinson (“Robinson”).¹ Ramirez asserts that the trial court erred in its judgment, raising several issues for our review. Because Ramirez has violated numerous provisions of Indiana Appellate Rule 46, including failing to cite to any legal authorities and to pertinent portions of the record, we conclude that she has waived appellate review of her issues. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's judgment.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] This case arises from a dispute between Robinson and Ramirez in the Marion County Small Claims Court. On October 23, 2023, Robinson filed a notice of claim in the small claims court seeking $9,990 for reimbursement for the cost of an engagement ring and furniture, asserting that Ramirez failed to return the ring after their engagement was called off and refused to pay her share for the furniture, which Robinson alleged he and Ramirez had agreed to purchase together. On November 27, 2023, Ramirez filed a response and counterclaim, alleging that the ring and furniture had been gifts from Robinson and raising a claim of “defamation of character” against Robinson due to Ramirez's assertion that Robinson had been speaking “bad things” about her to others. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 4.

[3] On November 29, 2023, a hearing was held. It is unclear what testimony and evidence was presented because a transcript was not provided. According to the CCS, at the hearing, Ramirez claimed that the ring at issue had been stolen when her vehicle was stolen in December 2022. Ramirez also asserted that the furniture was a gift from Robinson and that no agreement existed regarding shared payment for the furniture. At the conclusion of the hearing, the small claims court found that Robinson failed to disprove Ramirez's claim that the furniture was a gift. The court ordered Ramirez to provide the court with a copy of the police report from the theft of her vehicle that listed the ring as a stolen item, and if the ring was not listed in the police report, the trial court ordered that Ramirez would be responsible for fifty percent of the loan for the ring. The small claims court also dismissed Ramirez's counterclaim without prejudice.

[4] On January 24, 2024, Ramirez sought additional time in which to obtain the police report, and the court gave Ramirez until February 21, 2024, to provide the police report. On February 22, 2024, due to Ramirez's failure to produce a police report, the small claims court issued its order entering judgment in favor of Robinson in the amount of $3,371.50 plus costs and post-judgment interest. Ramirez now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Initially, we note that Ramirez has chosen to proceed pro se. A litigant is not given special consideration by virtue of his or her pro se status. Kelley v. State, 166 N.E.3d 936, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). “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, 983–84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal citations omitted). These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent arguments on appeal. Id. at 984. Although we prefer to decide issues on the merits, where the appellant's noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is so substantial that it impedes our appellate consideration of the alleged errors, we may deem the appellate issues waived. Id.

[6] The purpose of our appellate rules, and Indiana Appellate Rule 46 in particular, is “ ‘to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case.’ ” Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Ramsey v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). We will not become an advocate for a party and will not address arguments which are inappropriate, too poorly developed, or improperly expressed to be understood. Id.

[7] Ramirez's appellate brief contains several deficiencies and violates several provisions of Appellate Rule 46(A) in some manner. Specifically, Ramirez's brief contains no citation to legal authority for any of her propositions and, therefore, contains no table of authorities. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(2) (requiring a table of authorities listing each case, statute, rule, and other authority cited in the brief with references to each page on which the authority is cited); App. R. 46(A)(8) (requiring contentions of the appellant contained in the argument section to be supported by citation to legal authorities). Also, although she cites to the transcript throughout her brief, there was no transcript filed with this court as Ramirez did not request the preparation of a transcript, and she did not cite to the portions of the record that were filed with this court. See App. R. 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring the contentions made in the argument section to contain citations to both to legal authorities and parts of the record relied upon); App. R. 9(F)(5) (requiring a request for a transcript to be made in the notice of appeal when the appellant intends to “urge on appeal that ․ conclusion ․ is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence”). Additionally, the statement of facts section does not contain a narrative statement of the relevant facts and instead contains argument on why the trial court erred in its judgment. See App. R. 46(A)(6) (requiring the statement of facts section to consist of a narrative statement of the facts presented in accordance with the standard of review appropriate to the judgment being appealed and supported by page references to the record). Further, neither the statement of issues nor the summary of the argument contains a concise or succinct description of the issues presented or the arguments made in the brief. See App. R. 46(A)(4) (requiring the statement of issues to contain a concise and particular description of each issue presented); App. R. 46(A)(7) (requiring the summary of the argument section to contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments).

[8] “ ‘While we are often tolerant of minor infractions of the appellate rules so that we may decide appeals on their merits, those rules are nonetheless binding on all persons bringing appeals to this court.’ ” Ramsey, 789 N.E.2d at 490 (quoting Sartain v. Blunck, 453 N.E.2d 324, 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)). Ramirez's noncompliance with the appellate rules impedes us from reaching the merits of her appeal. Her failure to cite to legal authority would require us to determine the legal basis of her claims of error, and the failure to include the transcript leaves us with no ability to know what evidence was presented to the trial court. As a result, we are unable to provide meaningful appellate review of her arguments. A party waives an issue where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the record. Clary-Ghosh v. Ghosh, 26 N.E.3d 986, 989 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Dickes v. Felger, 981 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)), trans. denied. We, therefore, conclude that Ramirez has waived her issues on appeal and affirm the trial court's grant of judgment in favor of Robinson.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Robinson does not participate in this appeal and has not filed an appellee's brief.

Foley, Judge.

Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.