WALTON v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK MKPKDK LLC (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Plaintiff Deborah Walton, pro se, appeals the trial court's order denying her motions for default judgment and granting motions to dismiss filed by defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Manzil Koholi, MKPKDK Realty LLC, Brian Berger, Ted Swiecichowski, and Richard E. Hendrickson. We find Walton's arguments waived for lack of cogency and therefore affirm.

[2] Pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys, so Walton's “pro se status garners no special consideration.” T.J. v. J.J., 270 N.E.3d 979, 986 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. “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.” Picket Fence Prop. Co. v. Davis, 109 N.E.3d 1021, 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. “These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent argument on appeal.” Id.

[3] “The purpose of our appellate rules, Ind. Appellate Rule 46 in particular, is to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case.” Ramsey v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “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.” Davis, 109 N.E.3d at 1029. We will not become an advocate for a party or address arguments that are too poorly developed or expressed to be understood. In re N.E., 228 N.E.3d 457, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).

[4] “A brief should not only present the issues to be decided on appeal, but it should be of material assistance to the court in deciding those issues.” Cnty. Line Towing, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 714 N.E.2d 285, 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. Walton's brief falls far short of this goal.

[5] To begin with, Appellate Rule 46(A) provides that an appellant's brief “shall contain” multiple enumerated sections, including a statement of the case and a statement of facts. The statement of the 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 or Administrative Agency. Page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix are required in accordance with Rule 22(C).”¹ Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(5). Walton's statement of the convoluted course of the proceedings in this case is disjointed and unacceptably argumentative, and it does not contain a single reference to the Record on Appeal or Appendix. See Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 365 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (stating that an appellant's statement of the case should not be argumentative). Appellate Rule 46(A)(6) provides that the statement of facts “shall describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review but need not repeat what is in the statement of the case.․ The facts shall be supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix in accordance with Rule 22(C).” Walton's brief does not contain a statement of facts, resulting in an utter lack of context for her legal arguments.

[6] On that topic, Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) provides that the argument section of an appellant's brief “shall contain the appellant's contentions why the trial court ․ committed reversible error.” “The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on, in accordance with Rule 22.” App. R. 46(A)(8)(a). The argument section of Walton's brief contains multiple citations to various legal authorities, but not a single citation to the Appendix or the Record on Appeal. We will not search the record to find the basis for a party's argument. Cingel v. Ferreri, 269 N.E.3d 857, 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). Moreover, Walton's citations simply state legal conclusions regarding her unsubstantiated factual allegations, which is insufficient to merit reversal. See Pope v. Wabash Valley Hum. Servs., Inc., 500 N.E.2d 209, 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (“Mere conclusory arguments do not discharge the appellant's burden of establishing reversible error.”).

[7] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Walton's noncompliance with the appellate rules is so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, and therefore we deem her alleged errors waived. Accordingly, we affirm.

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Appellate Rule 50(A) provides that an appellant's appendix “shall contain” copies of certain documents, including “the chronological case summary for the trial court[,]” “the appealed judgment or order,” and “pleadings and other documents from the Clerk's Record in chronological order that are necessary for resolution of the issues raised on appeal[.]” Walton's appendix contains only a copy of the chronological case summary and the appealed order. It does not include a copy of her complaint or the various motions and other documents that would be necessary to resolve the issues that Walton raises on appeal.

Bailey, Judge.

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