Joseph A. Novak, Appellant-Defendant v. LLC (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Joseph A. Novak, pro se, appeals the trial court's grant of a motion for writ of assistance filed by Michigan City Rentals, LLC (“Michigan City Rentals”). Novak raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the court abused its discretion when it issued the writ of assistance. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 1, 2024, Horizon Bank (“Horizon”) initiated foreclosure proceedings on property owned by Novak. On March 4, 2025, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Horizon and entered its judgment of foreclosure. Michigan City Rentals purchased the property at a sheriff's sale on May 1, 2025. Then, on June 3, Michigan City Rentals filed a motion to intervene in the foreclosure action, which motion the trial court granted.

[3] On June 9, Michigan City Rentals filed an updated motion for writ of assistance. In that motion, Michigan City Rentals asserted that a tenant was occupying the property and that the tenant refused to vacate. Accordingly, Michigan City Rentals requested that the court issue a writ of assistance commanding the sheriff to remove the tenant and any other occupant from the property. Following a hearing at which Novak appeared pro se, the court granted the motion and entered its order for writ of assistance on July 8, 2025. This appeal ensued.¹

Discussion and Decision

[4] Novak contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it issued the writ of assistance. “The issuance of a writ of assistance rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” State Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Winfrey, 419 N.E.2d 1319, 1321 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). We first note that Novak 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).

[5] Further, neither Horizon nor Michigan City Rentals filed an appellee's brief in response to Novak's amended 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 appellant establishes prima facie error. Id. Prima facie “means at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id.

[6] On appeal, Novak first asserts that the court abused its discretion when it issued the writ of assistance because it did not rule on his objection that the writ “would take land from [him] in violation of” the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 11 and 12 of the Indiana Constitution. Appellant's Br. at 8. And Novak argues that “[a] court's silence in the face of a jurisdictional or constitutional challenge is not a ruling and cannot substitute for the findings required before enforcement.” Id.

[7] However, Novak has not provided any citation to authority to support his position that a court is required to issue findings related to a constitutional challenge. In addition, other than baldly stating at the hearing that the writ would violate his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments because the property is “tangible land,” he did not explain to the trial court how the writ would violate his rights. Tr. at 15. Nor does he make any argument on appeal as to how his rights were violated by the writ. As such, Novak has failed to make cogent argument on this issue, and it is waived. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).

[8] Novak next asserts that the court abused its discretion when it issued the writ because the court did not first establish jurisdiction. But Novak failed to cite any authority to support his position that the court was required to make findings regarding its jurisdiction to enter a writ. As such, he has again waived this argument by failing to support it with citations to authority. See id.

[9] Novak also asserts that the court abused its discretion when it issued the writ because the writ removed “unidentified persons” and did not identify “sub-addresses[.]” Appellant's Br. at 11. Regarding the unidentified people, Novak has not directed us to any authority to show that a court is required to identify, by name, every individual that may be the subject of the writ. As for the separate addresses argument, Novak did not present any evidence to the trial court, nor has he provided anything on appeal, to show that his property contained multiple or “sub-addresses.” Id. Novak has again failed to present cogent argument supported by citations to authority, and he has waived this argument.

[10] Finally, Novak contends that the court abused its discretion when it issued the writ because it treated the writ “as a ministerial enforcement step rather than a judicial act requiring findings and analysis.” Id. But a writ of assistance is “a request for enforcement of the court's earlier determination, not any further litigation concerning the right of possession.” Ray-Ron Corp. v. DMY Realty Co., 500 N.E.2d 1163, 1165 (Ind. 1986). Once the question of ownership was established, all that “remained to be done was to gain the court's help in removing” the tenants from the property. Id. Novak has not shown that the court was required to take any action prior to issuing the writ or that it was required to issue findings and conclusions related to the writ.

Conclusion

[11] Novak has not demonstrated prima facie error regarding the court's issuance of the writ of assistance. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Novak filed his notice of appeal on July 14, 2025, and then filed his appellant's brief. Horizon filed an appellee's brief and argued only that Novak's appeal was untimely with respect to the foreclosure judgment that had been issued on March 4. On November 14, this Court dismissed the appeal as untimely. Novak filed a petition for rehearing and argued that his appeal was timely as to the writ of assistance. On December 29, this Court reinstated his appeal with respect to the July 8 writ of assistance and ordered him to file an amended brief to address only that issue. Novak filed his amended brief, but neither Horizon nor Michigan City Rentals filed an appellee's brief in response.

Bailey, Judge.

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