Eve Baker Sparks, Appellant-Defendant v. LLC (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In March 2025, Eve Baker Sparks moved into a unit at The Fort Apartments in Indianapolis. The next month, Ackermann Group, managing agent for The Fort Apartment Holdings, LLC (“The Fort”), brought an eviction action against Sparks, claiming she had failed to pay rent. Sparks was evicted in July, and a damages hearing was held in September. The trial court entered judgment for The Fort, ordering Sparks to pay $8,803.14 in damages, $1,319.01 in attorney's fees, $157 in court costs, and post-judgment interest.

[2] Sparks now appeals, but the substantial deficiencies in her brief make meaningful review impossible. Her statement of the case consists of a list of allegations against The Fort followed by a list of requests for relief. The statement doesn't “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,” and it doesn't contain any record citations, all as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(5). Her statement of facts simply repeats the list of allegations from her statement of the case. The statement doesn't “describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review,” isn't “stated in accordance with the standard of review appropriate to the judgment or order being appealed,” isn't “in narrative form,” and isn't supported by record citations, all as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(6). And, inexplicably, Sparks's “Argument” consists of a discussion of Oregon negligence law, with no mention of the facts of this case. The argument isn't supported by cogent reasoning or record citations, as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). “While we prefer to decide issues on the merits, where the appellant's noncompliance with appellate rules is so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), reh'g denied. That is the case here. Because Sparks has waived any appellate argument she might have had, we affirm the judgment for The Fort.

[3] The Fort requests an award of appellate attorney's fees under Appellate Rule 66(E), which provides, “The Court may assess damages if an appeal, petition, or motion, or response, is frivolous or in bad faith. Damages shall be in the Court's discretion and may include attorneys’ fees. The Court shall remand the case for execution.” The Fort argues that “Sparks has demonstrated procedural bad faith through her noncompliance with the appellate rules.” Appellee's Br. p. 29. Sparks filed a reply brief but ignored The Fort's request for fees. Given her lack of response and the complete inadequacy of her opening brief, we find an award of appellate attorney's fees to be appropriate. See Wenner v. Hensley, 224 N.E.3d 339, 344-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (holding award of appellate attorney fees was warranted when appellant “wholly disregarded the form and content requirements of our appellate rules,” relied on facts that lacked support in the record or were irrelevant, and “his briefs required an inordinate amount of time to decipher”), reh'g denied. We remand this matter to the trial court for that purpose.¹

[4] Affirmed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Notably, this is the fourth time in the last year that Sparks has waived her arguments in an appeal by submitting deficient briefing. See Sparks v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff's Off., No. 25A-CT-3329, 2026 WL 1020614 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2026) (mem.); Sparks v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., No. 25A-PL-417, 2025 WL 1792691 (Ind. Ct. App. June 30, 2025) (mem.); Sparks v. Jefferson Cap. Sys., No. 25A-PL-251, 2025 WL 1662651 (Ind. Ct. App. June 12, 2025) (mem.). Luckily for Sparks, this is the first time we have ordered damages under Appellate Rule 66(E). If she continues filing frivolous appeals, it won't be the last.

Bailey, J., and Scheele, J., concur.