HERBST v. WOLF (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Charles E. Herbst (“Father”), pro se, appeals the trial court's order on various pending matters related to the dissolution of his marriage to Sarah Wolf (“Mother”). We find Father's arguments waived for lack of cogency and therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] From what we can discern from the trial court's order and Father's deficient brief, which we discuss in more detail below, Father and Mother were married on some unknown date and had two children. Mother petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2014. The marriage was dissolved in 2015, and the parties had joint custody of the children. Disputes arose over child support and parenting time, and a protective order was issued against Father at some point.

[3] On May 14, 2025, the trial court issued an order that does not appear in the appendix that Father submitted on appeal. Father filed a motion for clarification of the order. On May 28, after a hearing, the trial court issued an order that designated Mother “as the custodial parent for purposes of holidays and special days under the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines” and denied Father's motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to modify child support. Appealed Order at 1. Father appeals those portions of the trial court's order. Mother did not file an appellee's brief.

Discussion and Decision

[4] “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 citation omitted). “These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent arguments on appeal.” Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). “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 errors, we may deem the alleged errors waived.” Id.

[5] The purpose of our appellate rules, Indiana Appellate Rule 46 in particular, is to aid and expedite review and to relieve this Court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case. 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.” Terpstra v. Farmers & Merchs. Bank, 483 N.E.2d 749, 754 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), trans. denied.

[6] For starters, Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(5) provides that an appellant's statement of the case “shall briefly describe the nature of the case, the course of the proceedings relevant to the issues presented for review, and the disposition of these issues by the trial court or Administrative Agency. Page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix are required in accordance with Rule 22(C).” Father's statement of the case is a rambling, argumentative narrative without a single citation to the record on appeal or appendix.

[7] Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) provides that an appellant's statement of facts “shall describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review[,]” “shall be supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix in accordance with Rule 22(C)[,]” and “shall be in narrative form ․” Father's statement of facts is a non-narrative list of various events, filings, and orders dating from 2014 through 2025, almost all of which are irrelevant to the issues presented for review and only some of which are supported by page references to the record on appeal or appendix.

[8] Finally, Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) provides 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, in accordance with Rule 22.” And Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b) provides that “[t]he argument must include for each issue a concise statement of the applicable standard of review” and “must include a brief statement of the procedural and substantive facts necessary for consideration of the issues presented on appeal[.]” Father cites several cases and statutes and recites the applicable standards of review, but the arguments themselves lack cogency and coherency and rely on “facts” that are unsupported by citations to the record on appeal or appendix.

[9] In sum, Father's noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is so substantial that it impedes our consideration of the alleged errors, which we deem waived. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

[10] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.