IN RE: the Guardianship of Ashley Marie Peterson (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Ashley Peterson (“Ashley”), pro se, appeals the trial court's order denying her motion to set aside the final accounting in this guardianship case. She purports to raise three issues on appeal, but we hold they are all waived for her failure to effectively raise them in compliance with Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A). Therefore, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] A petition for guardianship of Ashley due to her incapacity was originally opened in the Marion Probate Court on April 7, 2008, but was subsequently closed. On May 7, 2014, a new guardianship petition was filed, the case was reopened, and Ashley's father, Donald Peterson (“Donald”), was appointed as her guardian. On April 19, 2016, Ashley and Donald filed a joint motion to terminate the guardianship,¹ which the court granted on May 20. The order terminating the guardianship states that “Ashley is no longer incapacitated, and therefore a guardianship is no longer necessary.” App. at 23. The order further states that Donald “agrees to submit a final accounting and documentation of any expenses incurred for the Court's approval.” Id. at 24.

[3] On August 16, 2021, Ashley filed a petition for contempt in which she alleged, in part, that Donald had failed to submit a final accounting as ordered by the trial court on May 20, 2016. On October 21, 2022, Ashley filed a motion to close the guardianship, even though it had already been terminated in 2016. On October 24, the court issued its “Order Granting Motion to Dismiss” the guardianship. Id. at 23. That same day, Donald filed an “Accounting Summary[,]” which was not approved by the court, “as the guardianship had been terminated [for] more than six years, and the court had just granted [Ashley's] ‘Motion to Close Case,’ ” effectively withdrawing her additional motions.” Id. at 11.

[4] On September 15, 2025, Ashley filed a petition to set aside the accounting that had been filed on October 24, 2022. She also filed an affidavit and exhibits in support of the petition. On November 12, 2025, Donald filed an affidavit with exhibits in response to the petition to set aside accounting. On November 13, the trial court conducted a hearing on the petition to set aside the accounting, at which Ashley and Donald presented argument but no testimony or other additional evidence.

[5] On November 14, the trial court issued its “Order on Final Guardianship Accounting and Objections” in which it noted that Ashley “objects to three items” in the October 24, 2022, accounting. Id. Specifically, the court found Ashley had alleged: she did not receive a payment of $10,000 on July 7, 2016, as alleged in the accounting; she did not receive a payment of $900 on September 9, 2020, as alleged in the accounting; and she did not receive the full amount she was owed from the sale of real estate she had owned in common with Donald. However, after reviewing the accounting summary and documents filed in support, the trial court was “satisfied [Donald] transferred the [$10,000 and $900] funds to [Ashley] as he stated,” and it “dismiss[ed]” those two objections. Id. at 12. Regarding Ashley's assertion that she was owed more money from the sale of the real estate, the court noted she had presented insufficient evidence to support that assertion, and the court “dismiss[ed]” that objection too. Id. The court also “belatedly accept[ed] and approve[d] [the October 24, 2022, Account Summary] as the final accounting for this guardianship case.” Id. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Ashley, pro se, appeals the trial court's order denying her petition to set aside the October 24, 2022, final accounting. We review such orders for an abuse of discretion, see Ind. Code § 29-3-2-4(a), “with a preference for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters[,]” In re Guardianship of A.E.R., 184 N.E.3d 629, 638 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022).

[7] Donald did not file an Appellee's brief; therefore, we will reverse the trial court's order if Ashley presents a case of prima facie error. See State ex rel. Family and Soc. Servs. Admin. v. Estate of Roy, 963 N.E.2d 78, 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. However, we note that

[i]t 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.

Lowrance v. State, 64 N.E.3d 935, 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citation modified), trans. denied.

[8] Ashley has waived her claims on appeal because neither her appendices nor her brief complies with the requirements of our Appellate Rules. An appellant's appendices must contain certain documents, if they exist, including a chronological case summary (“CCS”); “pleadings and other documents from the Clerk's Record in chronological order that are necessary for resolution of the issues raised on appeal;” and “any record material relied on in the brief unless the material is already included in the Transcript.” Ind. Appellate Rule 50(A)(2)(a), (f), (h). “Appellants who fail to include the materials necessary for our review risk waiver of the affected issues or dismissal of the appeal.” Cavallo v. Allied Physicians of Michiana, LLC, 42 N.E.3d 995, 999 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Ashley's appendix does not include a CCS or several documents necessary for resolution of the issues on appeal, such as Donald's challenged final accounting.² Moreover, her appendix includes some documents that do not appear to be part of the Clerk's Record in the trial court.³

[9] Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A) contains the requirements for an Appellant's brief, such as sections containing a Statement of Issues, a Statement of Facts, a Summary of Argument, and an Argument. The “Issues Presented” section of Ashley's brief does not “concisely and particularly describe each issue presented for review,” as the Rule requires; rather, it contains incomplete or run-on sentences with lengthy and improper arguments, peppered with periodic references to alleged record documents that are not included in the appendix.⁴ App. R. 46(A)(4). In addition, Ashley provides no Statement of Facts or Summary of Argument sections, as required. See App. R. 46(A)(6), (7).

[10] Ashley's Argument section is even more deficient. Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires that each contention in an appellant's brief must be “supported by cogent reasoning” and “by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal.” When a party refers to facts without citation to the record in support, “we need not consider those facts.” Reed v. City of Evansville, 956 N.E.2d 684, 688 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Similarly, when an appellant provides no citation to legal authority supporting her contentions, those contentions are waived. E.g., Shields v. Town of Perrysville, 136 N.E.3d 309, 312 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). And when an appellant provides no cogent argument for a contention, that contention is waived. See, e.g., Burnell v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1167, 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (noting the presentation of the appellant's contentions must contain a clear showing of how the issues and contentions relate to the particular facts of the case under review, and we will not review undeveloped arguments). Thus, under our Appellate Rules, “[i]t is not sufficient for the argument section that an appellant simply recites facts and makes conclusory statements without analysis or authoritative support.” Kishpaugh v. Odegard, 17 N.E.3d 363, 373 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

[11] Ashley purports to present three “Legal Arguments,” none of which comply with the appellate rules. Each of her “Legal Arguments” consists of one paragraph that is pages long, contains strings of often unrelated thoughts, provides no citations to any supporting legal authority, and provides no cogent argument. Further, her arguments are not supported by accurate, relevant citations to documents in the record; rather, she frequently refers to documents that are not contained in the record at all.⁵ Ashley's argument section of her brief is so deficient that she has waived her claims on appeal.

Conclusion

[12] Ashley's brief is disorganized and often incomprehensible. She has failed to comply with the appellate rules requiring cogent analysis supported by relevant and accurate citations to the record and legal authorities. That failure is so complete that it substantially impedes our appellate review. Therefore, Ashley has waived such review, and we affirm the trial court's order.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This document and several others relevant to the appeal were not provided in Ashley's appendix. We were able to access the missing documents through the Odyssey case management system (“Odyssey”).

2.   We were able to discern the facts as stated above only by reviewing the Appealed Order and the trial court record that we were able to access through Odyssey.

3.   For example, Ashely's appendix contains portions of a transcript from a hearing in another court, on another matter. App. at 27-31.

4.   For example, Ashley references “attachment 43.1 of the Defendant's accounting,” which is not located in the appendix. Appellant's Br. at 5.

5.   The following are examples. In “Legal Argument I,” Ashley refers to a “non[-]written contract of agreement of property dispute” without citation to any supporting record evidence and without further explanation or analysis. Appellant's Br. at 6-7. In her second argument, Ashley discusses the April 19, 2016, “petition to terminate guardianship,” which is not contained in the appendices. Id. at 9. In her third argument, Ashley refers to “a new agreement made by [Donald] regarding the 20% housing loan agreement on a property ranging from $60,000 to $80,000,” that is not located in the record on appeal and which we were not able to locate in the trial court record on Odyssey. Id. at 10.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Scheele, J., concur.