Robert Minardo, Appellant-Petitioner v. Ashley Russell, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Robert Minardo (“Father”), pro se, appeals the trial court's order denying his second motion to correct error in this paternity action. The only issue he raises is whether the trial court abused its discretion by considering evidence outside the record which was not supported by an affidavit as required by Trial Rule 59(H)(1). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 16, 2024, Father initiated this paternity action regarding M.R. (“Child”), who was born on April 28, 2020, to Ashley Russell (“Mother”). Father's paternity of Child was determined by the court “at a hearing on February 6, 2025, and through a stipulation by the parties.” App. at 21. On September 10, the court held a final paternity hearing on issues including child custody, parenting time, and child support. At the hearing, Mother's Exhibits 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 14 were admitted “without objection[.]” Id. at 15. Mother's admitted Exhibit 11 included a copy of the Perry Township School System's Calendar for 2025-2026. In an Order dated October 10 (hereinafter, “the Paternity Decree”), the court granted sole custody to Mother, granted parenting time to Father, and ordered Father to pay child support.

[3] On November 4, Mother filed a motion to correct error regarding the Paternity Decree, alleging error in the calculation of Father's annual overnight parenting time credits and weekly income for child support purposes. The motion included some exhibits not included in the trial court record. Although the motion was entitled “Motion to Correct Errors and Affidavit in Support of Evidence Outside of the Record,” it did not include an affidavit and was not verified.

[4] On November 18, Father filed his response to Mother's motion, including an allegation that the motion was “based on evidence outside the trial record” but was not supported by an affidavit as required by Indiana Trial Rule 59(H)(1). Id. at 67. On November 20, the trial court granted Mother's motion to correct error regarding the calculation of Father's annual overnight parenting time credits and revised the child support order accordingly; however, the court's order did not rely upon Mother's evidence outside the trial record but upon “findings previously made by the Court[.]” Id. at 70. The court denied Mother's motion to correct error regarding Father's weekly income amount.

[5] On December 16, Father filed a motion to correct error relating to the November 20 order, including allegations that the court “erred in considering the exhibits” attached to Mother's November 4 motion to correct error without Mother submitting a supporting affidavit. Id. at 73. Mother filed a response, and, on January 5, 2026, the court issued its “Second Order Correcting Errors.” Id. at 84. In its second order, the court again referenced its own prior findings and also referenced exhibits that had been admitted into evidence at the September 10 final hearing, including Exhibit 11, the 2025-2026 Perry Township School System's Calendar. The court then corrected paragraph 10 of the Paternity Decree, as modified by its November 20 order correcting error, by adding only the following sentence: “The child support arrearage in the amount of $20,515.00 shall be a judgment against Father in favor of Mother and shall accrue interest at the rate of One Percent (1%) per month until paid in full.” Id. at 86.

[6] On January 30, Father filed his “Second Motion to Correct Errors”, alleging the court erred in its Second Order Correcting Errors by considering evidence outside the record without a supporting affidavit as required by Trial Rule 59. On February 17, the trial court summarily denied Father's Second Motion to Correct Errors. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Father challenges the trial court's denial of his Second Motion to Correct Errors. As an initial matter, we note that Mother has not filed an Appellee's brief in this appeal. Under such circumstances, this court

need not develop an argument for the appellee[ ] but instead will reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant's brief presents a case of prima facie error. Prima facie error in this context means at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.

Salyer v. Wash. Regular Baptist Church Cemetery, 141 N.E.3d 384, 386 (Ind. 2020) (quotations and citations omitted).

[8] We further note that Father brings this appeal 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.

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

[9] Here, Father has arguably waived his appeal by failing to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires that “[e]ach contention [in the argument section] be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal.” When an appellant provides no citation to legal authority supporting his contentions, those contentions are waived. E.g., Shields v. Town of Perrysville, 136 N.E.3d 309, 312 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). 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). This rule “prevents the court from becoming an advocate when it is forced to search the entire record for evidence in support of [a party's] broad statements.” Lane Alan Schrader Tr. v. Gilbert, 974 N.E.2d 516, 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Keller v. State, 549 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind. 1990)).

[10] Here, Father has failed to cite any legal authority for the standard of review, and he cites only the trial rule itself in support of his contention that the trial court erred in denying his second motion to correct errors by relying on exhibits Mother filed without a supporting affidavit. Under some circumstances, a single citation to a trial rule and no citations to applicable caselaw would waive the appeal for review. See, e.g., Carter v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 837 N.E.2d 509, 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (finding waiver where there was no citation to legal authority other than a passing reference to a rule), trans. denied.

[11] However, “whenever possible, we prefer to resolve cases on the merits instead of on procedural grounds like waiver.” Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, “unless we find a party's non-compliance with the rule sufficiently substantial to impede our consideration of the issue raised, we will address the merits of his claim.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the facts and applicable rule are sufficiently clear that we are able to resolve Father's claim on the merits, despite the insufficiencies of his brief.

[12] We review a grant or denial of a Trial Rule 59 motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., B.A. v. D.D., 189 N.E.3d 611, 614 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or is contrary to law. Id.

[13] Father is correct that the plain language of Trial Rule 59(H)(1) requires supporting “affidavits showing the truth of the grounds set out” in a motion to correct error that is based on evidence outside the record. See also, e.g., Beall v. Mooring Tax Asset Grp., 813 N.E.2d 778, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (finding trial court did not err in denying a motion to correct error that was based upon evidence outside the record that was not supported by affidavit). Father is also correct that Mother's November 4 motion to correct error attached evidence outside the record ¹ and did not include supporting affidavits. However, Father incorrectly contends that the trial court relied upon the evidence outside the record that Mother attached to her motion to correct error. Rather, the trial court specifically stated that its orders correcting error were based on “findings previously made by the [trial] court[,]” App. at 70, and exhibits that had been entered into evidence at the final paternity hearing, such as “Mother's Exhibit #11 ․ show[ing] the child's 2025-2026 School Year Calendar,” id. at 85. Based on that evidence, the trial court recalculated the amount of Father's child support payments and arrearage and modified paragraph 10 ² of the Paternity Decree ³ accordingly.

[14] Because the trial court did not rely upon evidence outside the record in its orders correcting error, it did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father's motion to correct error based on Mother's alleged non-compliance with Trial Rule 59(H)(1).

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Specifically, Mother attached her new “exhibits” 1 through 6, which consisted of new child support worksheets, a copy of the Perry Township School System's Calendar for 2026-2027, and a document purporting to be a summary of the overnight credits to which Father is entitled under the Paternity Decree.

2.   The court's orders correcting error modify paragraph 10 of its conclusions of law and decree, rather than paragraph 10 of its findings of fact.

3.   The court also modified paragraph 11 of the Paternity Decree by combining Paternity Decree paragraphs 11 and 13 into a new paragraph 11, with subsections (a) and (b). However, there does not appear to be any substantive change to paragraph 11, and Father does not challenge the modification of that paragraph.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.