Marcus Q. Williams, Appellant-Petitioner v. Arnetia M. Thurmond, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In 2011, the trial court found Marcus Q. Williams to be the father of N.B., whose mother is Arnetia M. Thurmond. Over the years, Williams attended several hearings on the matter, including one for contempt based on his noncompliance with the order. On March 30, 2026, Williams moved under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) to set aside the 2011 order, arguing that he was never served with the paternity action and that the trial court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over him and violated his due process rights. The trial court denied the motion, finding the issue moot because it had already been decided. Williams appeals, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion. We affirm.

Discussion and Decision

[2] We review the trial court's ruling on a motion for relief from judgment under Trial Rule 60(B) for an abuse of discretion. Weaver v. Niederkorn, 9 N.E.3d 220, 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We will reverse only if the trial court's decision is contrary to the logic and the effect of facts before it. Id.

[3] As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge that Williams proceeds in this case pro se and as such is held to the same standard as attorneys and required to follow procedural rules.¹ Maw v. Pringle, 263 N.E.3d 790, 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). When an appellant elects to represent himself, we will not “indulge in any benevolent presumptions on [his] behalf, or waive any rule for the orderly and proper conduct of [his] appeal.” Ankeny v. Governor of State of Ind., 916 N.E.2d 678, 679 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Foley v. Mannor, 844 N.E.2d 494, 496 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)), trans. denied.

[4] Indiana Appellate Rule 46 governs the arrangement and content of the parties’ briefs. Rule 46(A)(6)(a) requires a Statement of Facts with citations to the record, and Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires the Argument section to support each contention with cogent reasoning and citations to the record and to relevant authority. Williams's brief satisfies neither requirement: his Statement of Facts cites no part of the record, and, while his Table of Authorities lists two cases and three rules, those citations to legal authority appear nowhere else in the brief. These defects prevent us from discerning whether his argument is supported by the record or legal authority, so we hold his appeal is waived. See Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (issues waived because noncompliance with appellate rules impeded ability to address issues).

Conclusion

[5] Because Williams's brief did not comply with Rules 46(A)(6)(a) and 46(A)(8)(a), we hold his issues waived and affirm the trial court's denial of Williams's Trial Rule 60(B) motion.

[6] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because Thurmond did not file an appellee's brief, we do not develop arguments on her behalf. See Maw, 263 N.E.3d at 793. We therefore apply the less stringent prima facie error standard, under which reversal is warranted upon a showing of “an error at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. (quoting Zoller v. Zoller, 858 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)).

May, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Scheele, J., concur.