GONZALEZ v. INDIANA FINANCE FINANCIAL CORP (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Victor Gonzalez appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to set aside default judgment in favor of Indiana Finance Financial Corp. (“Indiana Finance”). We dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 30, 2020, Indiana Finance filed a Notice of Claim in the Small Claims Court of Wayne Township of Marion County.¹ On August 26, 2020, the court entered an order granting judgment in favor of Indiana Finance in the amount of $8,000. On July 3, 2025, Gonzalez filed a “Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment.”² Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 7. On July 30, 2025, the court held a hearing and denied the motion.³

Discussion

[3] We note that a pro se litigant is held to the same established rules of procedure that trained legal counsel are bound to follow, and the fact that a litigant proceeds pro se does not excuse the litigant from complying with appellate rules. Foster v. Adoption of Federspiel, 560 N.E.2d 691, 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). Where an appellant fails to substantially comply with the appellate rules, dismissal of the appeal is warranted. Hughes v. King, 808 N.E.2d 146, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). This Court has discretion to dismiss an appeal for the appellant's failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Miller v. Hague Ins. Agency, Inc., 871 N.E.2d 406, 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“Although we will exercise our discretion to reach the merits when violations are comparatively minor, if the parties commit flagrant violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure we will hold issues waived, or dismiss the appeal.”), reh'g denied.

[4] Gonzalez has failed to comply with the requirements of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(4) provides that the Statement of Issues “shall concisely and particularly describe each issue presented for review.” Gonzalez lists seven issues in his statement of issues including “deficiency of vehicle never mentioned,” “Victor Gonzalez was not ever given a court day before judgement fi[l]ed against him,” “this judgment appears on Victor Gonzalez credit report before[ ] he was given the right or notice to appeal,” and “Indiana Finance knowledge of laws and court system.” Appellant's Brief at 4 (capitalization omitted).

[5] Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A) provides that “[t]he appellant's brief shall contain the following sections under separate headings ․ (5) Statement of Case,” which is a statement that “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” and “(7) Summary of Argument,” which “should contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief.” Gonzalez's brief does not contain a statement of case or summary of argument.

[6] Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) governs the statement of facts and provides that “[t]he facts shall be supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix in accordance with Rule 22(C).” Ind. Appellate Rule 22(C) provides that “[a]ny factual statement shall be supported by a citation to the volume and page where it appears in an Appendix, and if not contained in an Appendix, to the volume and page it appears in the Transcript or exhibits, e.g., Appellant's App. Vol. II p.5; Tr. Vol. I, pp. 231-32.” Under the heading “Statement of Facts,” Gonzalez's brief includes no citations to the record. Appellant's Brief at 5 (capitalization omitted).

[7] Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) provides that “[t]he 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, in accordance with Rule 22.” 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; this statement may appear in the discussion of each issue or under a separate heading placed before the discussion of the issues.”

[8] This Court has previously stated:

We demand cogent argument supported with adequate citation to authority because it promotes impartiality in the appellate tribunal. A court which must search the record and make up its own arguments because a party has not adequately presented them runs the risk of becoming an advocate rather than an adjudicator. Keller v. State, 549 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind. 1990). A brief should not only present the issues to be decided on appeal, but it should be of material assistance to the court in deciding those issues. Hebel v. Conrail, Inc., 475 N.E.2d 652, 659 (Ind. 1985). On review, we will not search the record to find a basis for a party's argument ․ nor will we search the authorities cited by a party in order to find legal support for its position.

Young v. Butts, 685 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (footnote omitted).

[9] Gonzalez's claims in the argument section of his brief are not supported by cogent reasoning or citations to the record.⁴ In light of the multiple violations of the Indiana Appellate Rules and lack of cogent argument, we dismiss Gonzalez's appeal. See Keller, 549 N.E.2d at 373-374 (dismissing appeal where appellant failed to provide cogent argument and adequate citation of authority).

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss.

[11] Dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record does not contain a copy of the Notice of Claim.

2.   The record does not contain a copy of this motion.

3.   The record does not contain a copy of this order. Gonzalez's notice of appeal did not request a transcript of this hearing, and the record does not contain a transcript.

4.   In the argument section of his brief, Gonzalez asserts: “Indiana Code 24-4.5-5 103 1-7. Especially ignored by Indiana Finance Company and Wayne[ ] Township Small Claims Court.” Appellant's Brief at 8. It appears that Gonzalez is referencing Ind. Code § 24-4.5-5-103, which is titled “Restrictions on deficiency judgments in consumer credit sales.” However, he does not point to any particular provision in that statute or develop a cogent argument regarding its provisions.

Brown, Judge.

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