Katherine Toms, Appellant, v. Andrew Toms, Appellee. (2026)

Order

[1] Over roughly the last year, Appellant has initiated seven (7) appeals. Six, including this appeal, have been dismissed for procedural reasons. Appellant has one appeal – the appeal under Cause Number 26A-PO-166 – that remains active.

[2] This appeal was dismissed on February 6, 2026. Immediately thereafter, Appellant filed a Motion for Refund of Paid Filing Fee, which the Court denied on February 13. On February 17, Appellant filed a Motion to Provide Proof to Order Denying Refund, which was denied on February 23. On February 20, Appellant filed a Motion to Provide Proof to Order Denying Refund (w/Exhibits Correction – 2nd version), which was denied on February 25. And finally, on February 23, Appellant filed a Motion to Provide Explanation for Denial.

[3] On February 27, 2026, the Court denied Appellant's Motion to Provide Explanation for Denial. But more importantly, the Court found Appellant's prolific and repetitive filings were a drain on judicial resources and warned Appellant that continued excessive and repetitive filings may result in the imposition of filing restrictions. See Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014) (noting after consideration of abusive litigant's history court may impose reasonable conditions and restrictions on litigant's ability to commence or continue actions that are tailored to litigant's particular abusive practices).

[4] Despite this warning, on March 13, 2026, Appellant filed a Motion of Explanation Re Order of 02 27 for Appellate Court Record. Appellee responded by filing a Response to Appellant's “Motion of Explanation” and Request for Sanctions and Filing Restrictions. Appellee has also filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Sanctions and Filing Restrictions noting the trial court issued an order imposing filing restrictions on Appellant on March 16, 2026.

[5] Appellant's filings in Cause Number 26A-PO-166 provide further evidence Appellant did not heed the warning in the Court's February 27, 2026 order. On March 18, 2026, the Court denied Appellant's Motion for Court Hearing Audio and Court Exhibits. On March 23, the Court denied Appellant's Motion to Provide Proof re: Objection to Audio and Exhibits. Now, Appellant has filed a Motion for Court Explanation asking the Court to explain its March 18 order.

[6] The Court finds that Appellant is a prolific, abusive litigant whose numerous filings have been a drain on judicial resources. “Every resource that courts devote to an abusive litigant is a resource denied to other legitimate cases with good-faith litigants.” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 264 (Ind. 2014). As such, “[t]here is no right to engage in abusive litigation, and the state has a legitimate interest in the preservation of valuable judicial and administrative resources.” Id. Courts have the inherent authority to impose reasonable restrictions on any abusive litigant including instructing “the clerk to reject without return for correction future filings that do not strictly comply with applicable rules of procedure and conditions ordered by the court.” Id. at 269.

[7] Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. To the extent it seeks relief, Appellant's Motion of Explanation Re Order of 02 27 for Appellate Court Record is denied.

2. Appellee's Request for Sanctions and Filing Restrictions is granted.

3. Pursuant to Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2014), after consideration of Appellant's litigation history, the Court concludes filing restrictions should be imposed on Appellant.

4. Accordingly, the Court imposes the following conditions upon Appellant:

a. Any Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant must fully comply with the content requirements of Appellate Rule 9(F) and Form #App.R. 9-1. If it does not, then the Clerk is directed to return the Notice of Appeal to Appellant without it being docketed.

b. At the time Appellant tenders a Notice of Appeal, Appellant must either pay the appellate filing fee as required by Appellate Rule 9(E) or comply with Appellate Rule 40 by showing Appellant has been granted permission by the trial court to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. If Appellant does not pay the appellate filing fee or comply with Appellate Rule 40, then the Clerk is directed to return the Notice of Appeal to Appellant without it being docketed.

c. Any documents/motions tendered by Appellant in a case after the Notice of Appeal has been filed must fully comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. If the tendered document/motion does not fully comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, then the Clerk is directed to return the noncompliant document/motion to Appellant without it being docketed.

d. Appellant must include a copy of this order with all documents, motions, and Notices of Appeal tendered with the Clerk of this Court. If Appellant does not do so, then the Clerk is directed to return the document, motion, or Notice of Appeal to Appellant without it being docketed.

5. These conditions apply in this case, any currently pending appeal, any past appeals initiated by Appellant, and any future appeals initiated by Appellant.

6. The Court directs that this order should be published.

7. The Clerk is directed to send this order to West/Thompson Reuters, LexisNexis, and all other sources to which decisions/opinions of this Court are normally sent.

8. The Clerk is directed to file this order in Cause Numbers 25A-DC-2996 and 26A-PO-166.

9. The Clerk is directed to send this order to the parties, the trial court, and the Tippecanoe Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk.

10. The Tippecanoe Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk is directed to file this order under Cause Numbers 79D02-1811-DC-632 and 79D07-2311-PO-669, and, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 77(D), the Clerk shall place the contents of this order in the Record of Judgments and Orders.