IN RE: the Marriage of Temitope Olaoluwa Oni (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Temitope Olaoluwa Oni (“Husband”) appeals the trial court's order finding him in contempt. Husband raises three issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the court erred when it found him in contempt. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 1

[2] Husband and Olajumoke Funke Oni (“Wife”) were a married couple. On August 6, 2021, Husband filed a petition to dissolve his marriage to Wife, and Wife filed a counter petition on March 10, 2023. On June 26, the court entered its decree dissolving the parties’ marriage.

[3] On January 9, 2024, Husband filed a petition to modify child support. Then, on April 23, Wife filed a motion for rule to show cause. The court held a joint hearing on the parties’ filings on August 29. On September 27, the court issued its order modifying child support and finding Husband in contempt.

[4] On December 2, Wife filed another motion for rule to show cause. On March 12, 2025, the court held a hearing on that motion and issued an order finding Husband in contempt and ordering him to pay costs and attorney's fees.

[5] On May 22, Wife filed her third motion for rule to show cause. The court held a hearing on that motion on September 24. At the beginning of the hearing, the court noted that Husband “did not appear.” Tr. at 4. The court then allowed Wife's attorney to “present the testimony by summary evidence and have [Wife] adopt or correct [the attorney] if [the attorney is] mistaken on anything.” Id. Wife's attorney stated as follows:

We are here for the third time now on the court's decree of dissolution that was entered June of 2023. June 26th, 2023, [Husband] was ordered to pay [Wife] $1,465 within 90 days of the decree, [Husband] failed to do so. He was found in contempt of that willful violation of the court order on September 27th, 2024, almost exactly a year ago today, a second time he was found in contempt for the same violation and that was on March 12th, 2025. And at that hearing, [Husband] was also ordered to pay attorney fees to Indiana Legal Services in the amount of $1,320. [Husband] still has failed yet again to remit a dollar even to [Wife] in a show of good faith and has paid zero toward those attorney fees. So now we're here almost 2 years later asking for contempt yet again and this time asking for a writ of body attachment with the purge bond in the amount of $2,785, which is the last amount ordered. But today additional attorney fees have been incurred and I will, once the client is asked if that's all true, I can put in my evidence from my affidavit of attorney fees, which was filed this morning.

Id. at 4-5. After the attorney provided that summary, the court placed Wife under oath and asked Wife if that summary was “true and accurate[.]” Id. at 5. Wife responded in the affirmative.

[6] Following the hearing, the court issued its order on November 4. The court noted that Husband had failed to appear and that Wife had appeared in person and by counsel. The court then found Husband in contempt “for the third time for failure to pay $1,465 to [Wife] plus $1,320 to Indiana Legal Services within thirty (30) days of the March 12, 2025[,] Order.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 27. Accordingly, the court ordered Husband to pay $1,465 to Wife immediately and to pay Wife's legal fees in the amount of $3,735 to Indiana Legal Services. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Husband appeals the court's order finding him in contempt. As the Indiana Supreme Court has stated:

“It is soundly within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether a party is in contempt, and we review the judgment under an abuse of discretion standard.” Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Witt v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 198, 202 (Ind. 2012)). “We will reverse a trial court's finding of contempt only if there is no evidence or inference therefrom to support the finding.” Id. The trial court has the inherent power to “maintain [ ] its dignity, secur[e] obedience to its process and rules, rebuk[e] interference with the conduct of business, and punish[ ] unseemly behavior.” Id.

Reynolds v. Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829, 832 (Ind. 2016) (alterations in original).

[8] We initially note that Husband proceeds pro se. “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). Further, Wife has not filed an appellee's brief. When an appellee does not file a brief, our court will not undertake the burden of developing arguments on that party's behalf. Thurman v. Thurman, 777 N.E.2d 41, 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Rather, we apply “a less stringent standard of review” and may reverse the trial court if the Husband establishes prima facie error. Id. Prima facie “means at first sight, or on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id.

[9] On appeal, Husband first asserts that the court erred when it found him in contempt because the court denied him his due process rights. Specifically, Husband contends that the court “noted [his] absence and proceeded immediately with the contempt adjudication” without any inquiry as to whether he “attempted to appear remotely” or whether any barrier prevented him from appearing. Appellant's Br. at 4. Husband maintains that the court's actions deprived him “of the notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard [as] required by Indiana Code § 34-47-3-6.” Id.

[10] However, Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-6(a) specifically provides that, if a defendant

fails to appear in court at the time and place specified in the rule [to show cause] provided for in section 5 of this chapter, to answer the rule, ․ the court may proceed at once, without any further delay, to attach and punish the defendant for contempt.

Stated differently, a court can proceed with a hearing on a motion for rule to show cause even if the defendant fails to appear. There is nothing in that statute, and Husband has not directed us to any case law or other statutory authority, that would require a court to conduct an inquiry into Husband's failure to appear.² Nor has Husband provided any argument that he was unaware of the hearing or that he was prevented from appearing. As a result, we cannot say that the court erred when it held Husband in contempt without conducting any inquiry into his absence.

[11] Next, Husband argues that the court abused its discretion when it found him in contempt because the contempt finding was unsupported by the evidence. In particular, he asserts that “no documentary evidence was admitted, no third-party testimony was presented, and no exhibits were introduced to establish the alleged violations.” Appellant's Br. at 5.

[12] On this issue, Husband first contends that Wife's attorney incorrectly stated that the hearing was the third contempt proceeding. But contrary to Husband's assertions, the CCS demonstrates that, prior to the September 24, 2025, hearing, the court held two other hearings on Wife's motions for rule to show cause: one on August 29, 2024, and one on March 12, 2025. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 21, 23. The statement by Wife's attorney that the hearing was the third contempt proceeding was accurate.

[13] Husband next argues that the court wrongfully “[a]ccepted” Wife's assertions that he had been ordered to pay $1,465 but had failed to make any payments without any “documentary proof,” such as receipts, billing statements, exhibits, or third-party verification. Appellant's Br. at 6 (bold removed). And Husband contends that the court wrongfully accepted Wife's attorney's statements regarding the attorney's fees that Wife had incurred because there was no cross-examination of the attorney or any challenge or inquiry into the reasonableness or necessity of the fees.

[14] Regarding the court's conclusion that Husband had been ordered to pay but had failed to do so, Wife's attorney stated that the court had ordered Husband to pay $1,465 to Wife on June 26, 2023, but that he “ha[d] failed yet again to remit a dollar” to Wife. Tr. Vol. 2 at 4. Wife then, under oath, testified that the statements of her attorney were “true and accurate.” Id. at 5. That is evidence that Husband had been ordered to pay but had failed to do so. Still, Husband challenges the court's procedure of allowing the attorney to make statements and then asking Wife if those statements were accurate, but Husband has not directed us to any authority to demonstrate that that procedure was improper. And, because Husband did not appear at that hearing, he did not object to the court's procedure or question Wife about her attorney's statements. Again, Wife testified under oath that her attorney had correctly stated that Husband had failed to pay as ordered.

[15] As to Wife's attorney's fees, Husband could have challenged the attorney regarding the amount, reasonableness, or necessity of the fees had he appeared at the hearing. But as discussed above, Husband failed to appear, and the court was free to proceed with the hearing in his absence. Because Husband did not appear, he forfeited the opportunity to question the fees. Wife's attorney informed the court of the number of hours she had worked and her fee and then stated that Wife had incurred $2,415 in attorney's fees. That is evidence to support the court's order for Husband to pay $2,415 in attorney's fees.

Conclusion

[16] The trial court did not err when it proceeded with the contempt hearing in Husband's absence. And there was evidence to support both the contempt finding and the order for attorney's fees. As such, Husband has failed to establish prima facie error in any respect, and we affirm the trial court.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5 outlines that a defendant, before answering the charge or being punished, must be served with a rule of the court against which the contempt was alleged to have been committed along with various contents for the rule to show cause. Husband has not alleged, let alone provided any documentation to show, any violations of that statute.

Bailey, Judge.

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