Patricia Dawn, Appellant/Defendant v. LLC (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] After failing to pay her rent, Patricia Dawn was evicted by her landlord, Twinship Property Management, LLC, and ordered to pay related damages to Twinship. Proceeding pro se, Dawn appeals the trial court's award of damages and denial of her counterclaim. But Dawn's appellate brief lacks the cogent argument required for appellate review and fails to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure in other ways. We therefore find her claims waived and affirm.

Facts

[2] In January 2024, Dawn entered into a year-long residential lease agreement with Twinship for an apartment in Indianapolis. Under the lease, rent was due on the first of each month, with fees accruing for late payments. The lease provided that non-payment of rent constitutes a breach of the lease, which, in turn, would allow Twinship to terminate the agreement. Upon termination, Twinship had the right under the lease to recover past due and accrued rent, future rent through the end of the lease term, costs and expenses of returning the residence to good and rentable condition, and attorney's fees.

[3] In August 2024, Dawn failed to pay her rent on the first of the month. When she had still not paid her rent by August 5, Twinship delivered Dawn a notice of her outstanding balance and warned that eviction proceedings would be initiated if her balance was not paid in ten days. Dawn still did not pay her outstanding balance by that deadline.

[4] On August 23, 2024, Twinship filed in small claims court a suit for possession of the apartment and damages, as Dawn had still made no payment. Dawn, proceeding pro se, filed a counterclaim on October 15, 2024, alleging that the condition of the unit forced her to relocate at the end of September 2024. She referenced ongoing maintenance issues, a rodent infestation, and noise issues with neighbors.

[5] The court conducted a hearing on October 18, 2024, at which Dawn returned the keys to the apartment to Twinship, having fully vacated the unit. With possession returned to Twinship, the trial court scheduled a hearing for March 25, 2024, to discuss Twinship's claim for damages and Dawn's counter claim.

[6] At that hearing, both parties presented evidence. Twinship presented the following evidence in support of its damages and against Dawn's counterclaim:

• Testimony from two of its representatives;

• Dawn's tenant ledger showing months of unpaid rent, late fees, and $200 in repairs to the unit;

• Photographs of damage to the unit and possessions left behind by Dawn;

• Invoices from an exterminator showing pest control services were regularly performed after Dawn's reports of infestations;

• Text messages between Dawn and Twinship's representatives; and

• An affidavit supporting its request for attorney's fees.

[7] Dawn cross-examined Twinship's two witnesses and testified on her own behalf. Dawn also called one additional witness and presented the court with a video of the interior of her apartment upon her move out. The trial court reviewed this video at the hearing. When the court asked Dawn whether she had anything else to address with respect to Twinship's claim for damages, Dawn responded, “No.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 33.

[8] The trial court issued an order finding for Twinship and denying Dawn's counterclaim. The court awarded Twinship $4,665 in damages, covering the months of unpaid rent, late fees, and the cost to repair and clean the unit. Twinship was also awarded $1,500 in attorney's fees.

[9] Dawn filed a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, which the trial court denied the next day. After Dawn filed a timely notice of appeal, this Court granted her motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to waive transcript costs. This appeal ensued, with Dawn proceeding pro se.

Discussion and Decision

[10] “It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Pro se litigants are “bound to follow” the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure and “must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Id. at 983-84. Though we typically “prefer to decide issues on the merits,” where an appellant's noncompliance with our appellate rules is “so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived.” Id. at 984.

[11] Dawn's appellate brief fails to comply with our Appellate Rules in multiple respects, impairing our ability to review her claims. First, Dawn fails to provide citations to the record to support her factual assertions. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6)(a) requires that facts “shall be supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix,” and Appellate Rule 22(C) mandates that “[a]ny factual statement shall be supported by a citation to the volume and page where it appears” in the record. Dawn's statement of facts contains no such citations. Additionally, Dawn's brief fails to include a concise statement of the applicable standard of review. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b) requires that “[t]he argument must include for each issue a concise statement of the applicable standard of review.”

[12] Most significantly, Dawn fails to present cogent argument supported by citation to legal authority. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) requires the appellant's brief to include an argument section that “contain[s] the appellant's contentions why the trial court ․ committed reversible error.” App. R. 46(A)(8). That argument “must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning,” and “[e]ach contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on.” App. R. 46(A)(8)(a).

[13] Dawn's argument section—in its entirety—reads as follows:

I. FALSE DAMAGE CLAIMS CONTRADICTED BY VIDEO AND EVIDENCE

The Appellee claimed extensive damages supported by unclear photos. However, Appellant submitted dated video walkthroughs showing that the unit was clean and intact. The trial court failed to reference or weigh this evidence.

II. RETALIATION AND HABITABILITY ISSUES WERE IGNORED

The appellant reported mice, leaks, and unsafe living conditions. After her Board of Health complaint, Twinship retaliated by cutting off communication and threatening the repair contractor. These facts were backed by texts and testimony, but the court ignored them.

III. FEE WAIVER DENIED WITHOUT CAUSE

Appellant provided documentation for her inability to pay court costs. Her request was denied without hearing or explanation. This restricts equal access to appeal and constitutes procedural injustice.

Appellant's Br. at 9-10.

[14] This argument section is devoid of any citation to legal authority and includes no legal analysis. Dawn does not explain what legal standards govern her claims, how the trial court failed to apply those standards, or why the trial court's decision constitutes reversible error.

[15] These conclusory statements, unsupported by legal authority or reasoned analysis, do not constitute cogent argument. Failure to develop a cogent argument results in waiver of that claim. Basic, 58 N.E.3d at 984. Because Dawn's argument is deficient in this manner, her claims are waived.¹

[16] “The purpose of the appellate rules, especially Ind. 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.” Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “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, 58 N.E.3d at 984 (internal quotation omitted). To address Dawn's arguments, we would be forced to “abdicate our role as an impartial tribunal and instead would become an advocate” for Dawn. Shepherd, 819 N.E.2d at 463. This we will not do.

[17] Given Dawn's significant noncompliance with our Appellate Rules—most notably her brief's lack of cogency and absence of citation to authority—we find Dawn has waived her claims for appellate review. We affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Though we find Dawn has waived her claim, we observe that the trial court reviewed the evidence which Dawn now complains was not adequately considered by the court—the video walkthrough of the apartment and the documents and testimony regarding Dawn's habitability concerns. Twinship presented contrary evidence. See Wynne v. Burris, 105 N.E.3d 188, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (holding that when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a small claims court judgment, appellate courts do not reweigh evidence). And though the court denied Dawn's claim to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, this Court granted that motion, along with her motion to waive transcript fees, and her appeal proceeded.

Weissmann, Judge.

Bradford, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.