Rami Fakhoury, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Raeda Al-Khatatbeh, Appellee-Defendant (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In June of 2024, Rami Fakhoury filed a small-claims court action against Raeda Al-Khatatbeh, seeking damages for an alleged breach of contract. Following a bench trial, the small-claims court found in favor of Al-Khatatbeh, determining that Fakhoury had failed to offer any evidence establishing a contractual relationship with Al-Khatatbeh. After the small-claims court granted Al-Khatatbeh's motion for attorney's fees, Fakhoury filed a motion to correct error, which was denied. Fakhoury appeals, and we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 28, 2024, Fakhoury filed a small-claims action against Al-Khatatbeh, demanding $2000.00 plus interest and court costs. The matter proceeded to a bench trial on January 16, 2025, after which the small-claims court found as follows:

1. [Fakhoury] did not offer evidence of any contractual relationship with [Al-Khatatbeh].

2. [Fakhoury] did not testify regarding any specific plan or agreement with [Al-Khatatbeh] to pay for a cell phone or cellular service.

3. [Fakhoury] was unaware that his Complaint alleged that [Al-Khatatbeh] worked for him.

4. [Fakhoury] admitted his father prepared the Complaint and that [he] did not review the Complaint before submitting it to the Court.

5. [Fakhoury] failed in all respects to meet his burden of proof that [Al-Khatatbeh] owes him any money or other duty.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 8. The small-claims court entered judgment in favor of Al-Khatatbeh and granted Al-Khatatbeh permission to submit a motion for attorney's fees “for defending against frivolous litigation.” Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 8–9. On February 3, 2025, the small-claims court granted Al-Khatatbeh's motion for attorney's fees. Fakhoury filed a motion to correct error, which was denied.

Discussion and Decision

[3] Initially, we note that Fakhoury proceeds pro se.

A litigant is not given special consideration by virtue of his pro se status. Rather, 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.

Kelley v. State, 166 N.E.3d 936, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (internal brackets, citation, and quotation omitted).

These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent argument on appeal. 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. We will not become an advocate for a party, or address arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.

Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal citations and quotation omitted).¹

[4] Fakhoury's appellate brief does not contain any statement of the facts relevant to this appeal in violation of Appellate Rule 46(A)(6). Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) provides that a statement of facts:

shall describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review but need not repeat what is in the statement of the case.

(a) The facts shall be supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix in accordance with Rule 22(C).

(b) The facts shall be stated in accordance with the standard of review appropriate to the judgment or order being appealed.

(c) The statement shall be in narrative form and shall not be a witness by witness summary of the testimony.

(d) In an appeal challenging a ruling on a post-conviction relief petition, the statement may focus on facts from the post-conviction relief proceeding rather than on facts relating to the criminal conviction.

[5] Fakhoury's argument section is also deficient. An appellant must include the following in the argument section of their appellant's brief:

(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.

(b) The argument must include for each issue a concise statement of the applicable standard of review; this statement may appear in the discussion of each issue or under a separate heading placed before the discussion of the issues. In addition, the argument must include a brief statement of the procedural and substantive facts necessary for consideration of the issues presented on appeal, including a statement of how the issues relevant to the appeal were raised and resolved by any Administrative Agency or trial court.

App. R. 46(A)(8).

[6] On appeal, Fakhoury raises the following six issues:

1. Whether the consolidation of cases caused confusion and prejudiced [his] ability to present his case.

2. Whether [he] was intimidated and unfairly treated during proceedings.

3. Whether the trial court improperly disregarded [his] testimony and evidence.

4. Whether [Al-Khatatbeh's] attorney made an indirect admission supporting [his] claim.

5. Whether [he] was wrongfully penalized for assisting [Al-Khatatbeh].

6. Whether attorney's fees were improperly awarded without a request or legal basis.

Appellant's Br. p. 4. In raising each of these arguments, Fakhoury fails to provide any cogent reasoning or cite to any facts or part of the record that would support his appellate claims. He also fails to state the applicable standard of review. Fakhoury did not request that the transcript be transmitted on appeal, and his appendix contains only the chronological case summary, his notice of appeal, the small-claims court's order, his motion to correct error, and the small-claims court's denial of that motion. None of these documents contain any facts relating to Fakhoury's claims and the record is devoid of any evidence supporting his claims. Based on the deficiencies in Fakhoury's appellate submissions, we are unable to review the merits of his claims. Fakhoury has therefore waived appellate review of the alleged errors. See Basic, 58 N.E.3d at 984.

[7] The judgment of the small-claims court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We also note that Al-Khatatbeh has failed to file an appellee's brief. In such a case, we need not develop an argument for Al-Khatatbeh but instead will reverse the trial court's judgment if Fakhoury's brief presents a case of prima facie error. See Hetty Inc. v. Weems, 237 N.E.3d 701, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “Prima facie error means at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id.

Bradford, Judge.

Judges Weissmann and DeBoer concur. Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.