Ashley M. Peterson, Appellant-Plaintiff v. CNHI LLC (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Ashley Peterson appeals the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice her Second Amended Tort Claim against The Herald Bulletin and CNHI LLC (collectively, the Newspaper). We dismiss the appeal in light of Peterson's multiple violations of the Indiana Appellate Rules and lack of cogent argument.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In early 2014, when she was in her early or mid-twenties,¹ Peterson and her then-guardian sat for an interview with a newspaper reporter to discuss her tragic childhood experiences, which included abuse she suffered while in foster care. On February 9 of that year, the reporter published an article about Peterson in Anderson's daily newspaper, The Herald Bulletin. Peterson was unhappy with some of the statements made about her in that article, and in the years after its publication, she repeatedly demanded The Herald Bulletin and its publisher, CNHI LLC, retract it. The Newspaper refused to do so. On October 7, 2025—over eleven years after the article's publication—Peterson filed a pro se “Notice of Civil Tort of [sic] Claim” against the Newspaper. Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 6.² As later amended, Peterson's claim made sprawling, meandering, and at times indecipherable factual allegations which she claimed supported five “counts”:

1) “Tortious Conduct of Intentional Infliction of Harm”;

2) “Tortious Conduct of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”;

3) “Negligence Res Ispa [sic] Loquitur”;

4) “Pre-existing Mental Traumatic Disorder Aggravation”; and

5) “Doctrine of Respondeat Superior of Intentional Tort Committed by Employer.”

Id. at 40, 42, 44, 46, 48. These “counts” are difficult to parse, leaving Peterson's theories of liability against the Newspaper unclear.

[3] The Newspaper moved to dismiss the notice of claim under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) and asserted two arguments in support of dismissal. First, the Newspaper claimed that Peterson “ha[d] failed to establish any set of circumstances under which she would be entitled to relief for each of her claims[.]” Id. at 70. Second, it argued her “claims [were] barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations for injuries to the person.” Id. After considering the parties’ briefs and without holding a hearing, the trial court granted the Newspaper's motion, summarily dismissed Peterson's notice of claim without prejudice, and gave her ten days to file an amended complaint under Trial Rule 12(B).

[4] On January 20, 2026, Peterson timely filed a “Second Amended Tort Claim[.]” Id. at 104. The amended claim made factual allegations similar to those in the original claim, repackaging many of the same “counts” among other unintelligible legal theories. Her amended claims were again challenging to decipher. The Newspaper once again moved to dismiss the amended claim and made the same arguments as it had in its first motion to dismiss. After the parties fully briefed the motion, the trial court summarily granted it on March 17, 2026, and dismissed Peterson's claims with prejudice. Peterson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision 3

[5] We hold pro se litigants like Peterson “to the same standard as trained counsel and require them to follow procedural rules.” McCauley v. Newrez LLC, 274 N.E.3d 1040, 1042-43 (Ind. Ct. App. 2026). We prefer to rule on the merits and are hesitant to decide an appeal on procedural grounds, but in appropriate circumstances this Court has discretion to dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Miller v. Hague Ins. Agency, Inc., 871 N.E.2d 406, 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“Although we will exercise our discretion to reach the merits when violations are comparatively minor, if the parties commit flagrant violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure we will hold issues waived, or dismiss the appeal.”), reh'g denied. Here, Peterson has substantially failed to comply with the Appellate Rules, and dismissal of her appeal is appropriate.

[6] To begin, Appellate Rule 46(A)(4) requires that the appellant's statement of the issues “shall concisely and particularly describe each issue presented for review.” Peterson's brief includes an “Issues Presented” statement which does not state clear, discrete questions for review. Appellant's Brief at 6. Instead, it strings together multiple alleged errors in compound sentences which are indecipherable. Peterson's four issue statements are argumentative, fact-laden, and read more like advocacy than neutral statements of the issues presented. This lack of coherence, focus, and organization impedes meaningful appellate review because it does not provide a workable roadmap for her arguments that follow.

[7] Furthermore, Appellate Rule 46(A)(5) provides that an appellant's statement of case “shall briefly 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 ․” Peterson's statement of case sufficiently describes the general nature of the case and the course of proceedings, but she misrepresents the March 17, 2026 order of dismissal. Peterson claims the court

grant[ed] the defendant's motion partially based on failure to state a claim for defamation, false light or falsehood ․, however did hold that dismissal was not based on the claim being time barred, based on the exception to the statute of limitations for persons with legal disability.

Appellant's Br. at 9. But the court did not explain its order, other than stating it had been “duly advised and ha[d] considered all arguments[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 179. This Court has long held that to facilitate appellate review, “it is necessary [for the appellant] to accurately report all entries which explain the court's actions and affect the issues on appeal.” Nehi Beverage Co. of Indianapolis v. Petri, 537 N.E.2d 78, 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (emphasis added), trans. denied. Peterson not only failed to accurately report the summary nature of the trial court's order of dismissal but appears to have crafted her appellate arguments based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the appealed order. See Appellant's Br. at 9-10 (asserting the trial court's erroneous analysis of her “claim” for “intentional fraudulent misrepresentation ․ is the sole reason for this appeal”) (emphasis added).

[8] Peterson's statement of the facts fares no better. Under Appellate Rule 46(A)(6), an appellant's statement of the facts “shall describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review ․” The rule also requires, among other things, that “[t]he statement shall be in narrative form ․” Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6)(c). Peterson's statement of the facts reads more like a procedural history of the case than a narrative about the parties, their background, and the circumstances that led Peterson to file her claims. Indeed, her statement of the facts cross-references her “statement of case” numerous times and essentially repeats its representations. Appellant's Br. at 10-11. She neither identifies the Newspaper by name (instead referring to it as “the defendants”),⁴ nor describes the circumstances leading to the publication of the article or what the article was about. Id. Further, she does little, if anything, to provide the factual background necessary to understand the parties’ dispute.

[9] We also note deficiencies in Peterson's appendix. An appellant's appendix must contain “copies of ․ those parts of the Record on Appeal that are necessary for the Court to decide the issues presented.” App. R. 50(A)(1). Appellate Rule 50 lists specific documents that must be included, “if they exist[,]” which includes the trial court's Chronological Case Summary, the appealed order, relevant pleadings, and “any record material relied on in the brief[.]” App. R. 50(A)(2). While Peterson's appendix contains copies of most (but not all) of the requisite documents, many are replete with handwritten notations and highlighter marks that did not appear on the documents filed with the court. In other words, many of the documents in Peterson's appendix are not “accurate copies of parts of the Record on Appeal” as required by Appellate Rule 50(A)(2)(i).

[10] Finally, and most critically for purposes of dismissing the appeal, Peterson's argument falls far short of the requirements in Appellate Rule 46(A)(8). Under that rule, the appellant's argument “shall contain [her] contentions why the trial court ․ committed reversible error.” App. R. 46(A)(8). Moreover, the argument “must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning[,]” and “must include for each issue a concise statement of the applicable standard of review[.]” App. R. 46(A)(8)(a), (b) (emphasis added). Peterson failed to include a clear statement of the applicable standard of review in her argument. Though she claims throughout her brief that “the trial court errored [sic] and abused discretion [sic][,]” Appellant's Br. at 11, we note that a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) order of dismissal is reviewed de novo, not for an abuse of discretion, City of Fishers v. Netflix, Inc., 264 N.E.3d 69, 77 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. More to the point, Peterson's argument is not coherent or cogent. In such cases, “[w]e will not step in the shoes of the advocate and fashion arguments on [her] behalf, ‘nor will we address arguments’ that are ‘too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood.’ ” Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023) (quoting Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)).

[11] In sum, given Peterson's multiple significant violations of the Appellate Rules and lack of cogent argument, we dismiss her appeal. See Keller v. State, 549 N.E.2d 372, 373-74 (Ind. 1990) (dismissing appeal when appellant failed to provide cogent argument and adequate citation to authority); Gonzalez v. Ind. Finance Fin. Corp., No. 25A-SC-1846, 2026 WL 192684, at *2 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2026) (mem.) (dismissing appeal “[i]n light of the multiple violations of the Indiana Appellate Rules and lack of cogent argument[.]”).

Conclusion

[12] For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal.

[13] Appeal dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Peterson's exact age is not clear from the record before us. In a document filed in October 2025, Peterson claimed to be thirty-five years old, which would make her twenty-three or twenty-four in early 2014.

2.   Peterson originally filed suit against The Herald Bulletin and an apparently non-existent entity called “Community Holdings Inc.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 6. However, she later moved to correct the defendant's name to CNHI LLC, which the trial court granted.

4.   This practice violates Appellate Rule 22(D), which prohibits parties from referring to one another “by such designations as ‘appellant’ and ‘appellee’ ” and instead requires that “parties shall be referred to by their names, or by descriptive terms such as ‘the employee,’ ‘the injured person,’ ‘the taxpayer,’ or ‘the school.’ ”

DeBoer, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.