KEMP v. STEELE AUTO (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In February 2024, Simon Kemp and Ebony Kemp (“the buyers”) purchased a truck from J.R. Steele Auto (“the seller”). Soon after, the buyers filed, in the small claims court, a notice of claim against the seller. The seller then filed a counterclaim against the buyers. After a bench trial, the small claims court entered judgment in favor of the seller in the amount of $10,000. The buyers, pro se, now appeal the small claims court's judgment.

[2] At the outset, we note that the buyers have chosen to proceed pro se. It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Thus, 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. Id. “These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent arguments on appeal.” Id. “We will not become an advocate for a party, nor will we address arguments which are either inappropriate, too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood.” Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[3] The buyers argue that the small claims court erred when it entered judgment in favor of the seller because the seller breached the terms of the sales contract and because the truck had known mechanical defects. The buyers specifically argue that the small claims court's decision “does not reflect the facts presented.” (Buyers’ Br. 7). However, the buyers have not provided our Court with a transcript of the hearing before the small claims court in violation of Indiana Appellate Rule 9(F)(5).

[4] Indiana Appellate Rule 9(F)(5) provides that if “the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding of fact or conclusion thereon is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the Notice of Appeal shall request a Transcript of all the evidence.” A party should designate “all portions of the Transcript necessary to present fairly and decide the issues on appeal.” Ind. Appellate R. 9(F)(5).

[5] Here, the buyers argue that the small claims court erred because its judgment does not reflect the facts in the record. However, the buyers provide us no avenue to review their claims because they did not procure or request a transcript of the bench trial. The Indiana Supreme Court has addressed an appellant's failure to include a transcript on appeal when factual issues are presented and held that “[a]lthough not fatal to the appeal, failure to include a transcript works a waiver of any specifications of error which depend upon the evidence.” In re Walker, 665 N.E.2d 586, 588 (Ind. 1996) (cleaned up). Consequently, the buyers have waived any argument relying on evidence that challenges the small claims court's judgment on appeal. See Lifeline Youth & Family Serv., Inc. v. Installed Bldg. Products, Inc., 996 N.E.2d 808, 815 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (concluding that a party had waived an argument relying on evidence presented at trial where the party had not provided a transcript of the trial on appeal).

[6] Further, the buyers also failed to file an appendix in violation of Indiana Appellate Rule 49(A), which provides that a “party shall file its Appendix on or before the date on which the party's brief is filed.” We note that Indiana Appellate Rule 50(A)(1) provides that “[t]he purpose of an Appendix in civil appeals ․ is to present the Court with copies of only those parts of the Record on Appeal that are necessary for the Court to decide the issues presented.” Here, the buyers did not provide our Court with an appendix and have further impeded our ability to decide the issues presented. Although Indiana Appellate Rule 49(B) provides that “Any party's failure to include any item in an Appendix shall not waive any issue or argument[,]” we note that the buyers’ failure to supply both a transcript of the bench trial and an appendix waives their arguments on appeal. See Ostrowski v. Everest Healthcare Indiana, Inc., 956 N.E.2d 1144, 1147-48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (concluding that an issue was waived on appeal where the record, which did not contain the portions of the transcript or appendix relevant to the issue, was insufficient to determine the issue).

[7] Finally, we note that the buyers have failed to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 46. Specifically, the buyers’ brief contains a roughly one-page argument section that cites to a single statute. The buyers have waived their arguments on appeal because their arguments fail to make any cogent argument or cite to any relevant authority that supports their claims. This failure is in violation of Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a), which provides that a party's arguments must be supported by cogent reasoning and “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.” Additionally, the buyers’ brief did not provide a standard of review for each issue as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b). We again note that we will not become an advocate for a party, nor will we address arguments that are inappropriate, too poorly developed, or improperly expressed to be understood. See Dridi, 172 N.E.3d at 364.

[8] Concluding that the buyers have waived their arguments on appeal, we affirm the small claims court's judgment.

[9] Affirmed.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   The seller argues that the buyers’ “procedural bad faith rises to the level of egregiousness for which appellate attorney's fees are appropriate.” (Seller's Br. 8). Procedural bad faith occurs when a party flagrantly disregards the form and content requirements of the rules of appellate procedure, omits and misstates relevant facts appearing in the record, and files briefs written in a manner calculated to require the maximum expenditure of time both by the opposing party and the reviewing court. Boczar v. Meridian Street Found., 749 N.E.2d 87, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). While Indiana Appellate Rule 66(E) provides this Court with discretionary authority to award damages on appeal, “we must use extreme restraint when exercising this power because of the potential chilling effect upon the exercise of the right to appeal.” Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 346 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Here, we decline to exercise our discretionary power and decline to award appellate attorney fees to the seller.

Pyle, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and DeBoer, J., concur.