WILLIAMS v. BONILLA RIVERA (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] On February 23, 2023, Quinisha L. Williams filed suit against Veronica Bonilla-Rivera and Willie Cardona-Feliciano (collectively, “Appellees”) in small claims court for intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, defamation, and other claims for medical bills and counseling services. Following trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Appellees. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Williams sued Appellees in small claims court on February 23, 2023, alleging claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, defamation, and other claims relating to medical bills and counseling services. On April 10, 2024, after considering the parties’ evidence and arguments presented at trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Appellees.

Discussion and Decision

[3] We note initially that neither Bonilla-Rivera nor Cardona-Feliciano has filed an appellee's brief.

When an appellee has not filed an answer brief, we need not undertake the burden of developing an argument on the appellee's behalf. Fifth Third Bank v. PNC Bank, 885 N.E.2d 52, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Rather, we may reverse the trial court if the appellant presents a case of prima facie error. Id. Prima facie error means at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it. Id. If an appellant does not meet this burden, we will affirm. Id.

Henderson v. Henderson, 919 N.E.2d 1207, 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

[4] Williams raises numerous issues on appeal but has failed to present any argument supported by cogent reasoning or citations to relevant authorities or statutes as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). “While we prefer to decide cases on their merits, we will deem alleged errors waived where an appellant's noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors.” Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The purpose of the appellate rules, especially Indiana Appellate Rule 46, is to aid and expedite review, as well as to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case. Id.

[5] Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) states that the argument section of an appellant's brief “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.” It is well-settled that we will not consider an appellant's assertion on appeal when she has failed to present cogent argument supported by authority and references to the record as required by the rules. Thacker, 797 N.E.2d at 345. If we were to address such arguments, we would be forced to abdicate our role as an impartial tribunal and would instead become an advocate for one of the parties. This, clearly, we cannot do. See id.

[6] Here, Williams's non-compliance with our appellate rules of procedure is substantial and precludes our review of her allegations of error on appeal. Although Williams does cite to some parts of the record, she fails to explain how those citations support her argument, and she fails to cite to any relevant authority as required by the rules. In short, Williams's claims on appeal are not supported by cogent argument and are therefore waived. However, to the extent that Williams argues that the trial court in this case colluded with another trial court in determining its judgment, or that the trial court in this case exhibited bias against her in its rulings, we note that review of the record reveals no evidence of any such collusion or bias, just unsupported allegations or insinuations.

[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.