SCHULTZ v. SCHULTZ (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In dissolving the marriage between Jennifer Schultz (Wife) and Carl D. Schultz (Husband), the trial court awarded legal custody and primary physical custody of the couple's son, C.S. (Child), to Husband. Wife now appeals, asserting a variety of issues. However, her 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 the trial court's order.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Husband and Wife were married in 2018, and Child was born in 2021. In August 2023, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and Wife filed a counter-petition. Under a provisional order, Wife was awarded use of the marital home in Lake Village. Wife was also awarded primary physical custody of Child, with Father exercising parenting time. The court also appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL).

[3] In January 2024, the GAL petitioned the trial court to order Wife to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, citing “major concerns about Wife's mental health.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 44.¹ The trial court thereafter ordered both parties to undergo psychological evaluations, which were conducted in April. Husband's evaluation revealed no concerns for his mental health. According to Wife's evaluation, she “presents with borderline personality disorder with narcissistic personality disorder traits” and she “could possibly become mentally unstable to the point that she could harm herself, [Child], or both.” Id. at 99-100. The evaluation included recommendations for Mother to receive psychiatric treatment. Thereafter, Father petitioned the court for a modification of the provisional order to grant him primary physical custody and sole legal custody of Child. After a hearing, at which Wife indicated she was unwilling to undergo psychiatric treatment, the trial court granted Husband's petition.

[4] The final hearing on the petitions for dissolution of marriage occurred in May 2025. Wife proceeded pro se. Prior to the presentation of evidence, the parties stipulated to certain facts, including the value of the marital residence, as well as its mortgage balance and equity balance. Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order granting Husband primary physical custody and sole legal custody of Child, with Wife receiving supervised parenting time according to the GAL's recommendation. The court divided the marital estate evenly, except for the premarital portions of each party's retirement accounts and the parties’ premarital vehicles. Wife now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] We first note Wife has chosen to proceed pro se. “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 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A-DC-1633 | January 23, 2026 Page 3 of 7 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. “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.” Ramsey v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dept. of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (quotation omitted).

[6] Wife's appellate brief fails to comply with our Appellate Rules in multiple respects, impairing our ability to review her claims. We look first to the statement of facts section. An appellant is required to provide a narrative statement of the facts presented in accordance with the standard of review appropriate to the judgment or order being appealed and supported by page references to the record. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6). The statement of facts must also be devoid of argument. Wife's statement of facts section fails to comply with this Rule in almost every way. It is not written in a narrative fashion, but rather a list of bullet points. The majority of the section is not supported by reference to the record, and the few citations that are provided are unhelpful due to Wife's failure to correctly paginate her appendix.

[7] Most troubling is the content of the statement of facts section, which not only contains argument but almost exclusively focuses on irrelevant information that is not in the record. Wife spends approximately twenty-five pages detailing unfounded allegations against her attorneys, Husband's attorneys, the GAL, and the trial court. For example, she alleges,

[t]hat the court officials, counsels, [Husband] and third parties are known to engage in targeted exploitation, dangerous schemes involving sabotage of anniversaries, holidays, employment & career, residences, insurance and mail fraud, social, religious, familial, financial concurrent with court dates & the majority of pleadings, appearances, substitution of counsel, marriage, dissolution, final hearing dates, and other pertinent timelines inside and outside of the court used to defraud, harass, stalk, set up, intimidate, launder, traffic, scapegoat, premeditate & conspire to commit murder as a means to cover up and rewrite truth, similar to [Husband's] acts documented and recorded over the years.

Appellant's Br. p. 31. In sum, Wife's statement of facts utterly fails to provide us with a narrative of relevant facts to aid our review.

[8] Moving to Wife's argument section, she 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.” 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).

[9] Wife asserts a variety of arguments but fails to support any with cogent reasoning or citations to the record. For example, she alleges the proceedings were tainted by “judicial bias” but fails to support that assertion with any evidence. Appellant's Br. p. 34. She does not point us to any part of the record showing judicial bias, nor does she tell us how the alleged bias affected the proceedings. She next alleges the trial court failed to consider evidence of alleged domestic violence when balancing Child's best interests but does not point to any such evidence in the record. Similarly, she alleges the court “failed to include, properly value, or equitably divide assets, including the marital home[,]” but beyond this assertion does not tell us how the court erred.² Id. at 38.

[10] Given the lack of cogent argument and the other significant rule violations, Wife has waived appellate review. See Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (“[A]lleged errors are waived where an appellant's noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors.”), trans. denied. We therefore affirm the trial court's order.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The written pagination in Wife's appendix does not match the PDF reader. Our pagination of any document in the record refers to the PDF pagination.

2.   Furthermore, both parties agreed to stipulate as to the value of the marital home. See Tr. Vol. II p. 174. And Wife cannot challenge a stipulated fact as it is “conclusive upon both the parties and the tribunal[.]” England v. Alicea, 827 N.E.2d 555, 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Scheele, Judge.

Brown, J., and Felix, J., concur.