ELROD v. ABRAHAM PROPERTIES LLC (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] This appeal arises from a dispute over unpaid rent. After a bench trial in small claims court, the court entered judgment against Tom Elrod and in favor of Abraham Properties, LLC (Landlord). Elrod appeals pro se, contending that he was never personally responsible for the rent. However, Elrod's brief lacks the cogency necessary for appellate review. We therefore find his claims waived and affirm the trial court's judgment.

 Facts

[2] The commercial building at issue was originally leased by Elrod's son, Eli, for one year, after which the tenancy continued on a month-to-month basis. Although Eli leased the building, Elrod was permitted to store a boat and personal belongings there. When Eli began having financial difficulties due to illness, Elrod exchanged text messages with Landlord about ensuring the rent owed by Eli was paid. Elrod later maintained, however, that he never signed a lease or agreed to become the tenant.

[3] Elrod eventually arranged for Dan Popplewell to take over most of the leased building for a body shop. Elrod told Landlord that Popplewell would pay the $1,650 rent and utility costs to Landlord and that Elrod would pay Popplewell for Elrod's use of the portion of the building that he occupied. Popplewell later moved to a different building owned by Landlord.

[4] Landlord filed suit in small claims court, seeking possession of the rental property and unpaid rent. Following a bench trial, the court requested proposed findings from the parties and then entered judgment against Elrod for back rent, adopting Landlord's proposed findings. Elrod appeals, and Landlord has not filed an appellee's brief in response.

 Discussion and Decision

[5] It is well settled that pro se litigants like Elrod “are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Such litigants are “bound to follow” the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure and “must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Id. at 983-84. Although we prefer to decide issues on the merits, when a litigant's noncompliance with our Appellate Rules is “so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived.” Id. at 984.

[6] Elrod has failed to comply with our Appellate Rules in several respects. First, his brief violates Appellate Rule 46(A)(5), which requires an appellant's brief to include a “Statement of Case” section that describes the nature of the case and the course of the proceedings. This statement must contain “[p]age references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix ․ in accordance with [Appellate] Rule 22(C).” App. R. 46(A)(5). The Statement of Case in Elrod's brief contains no citations to the record or appendix.

[7] Second, Elrod's brief violates Appellate Rule 46(A)(6). That rule requires an appellant's brief to include a “Statement of Facts” section that describes the relevant facts, is “supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix in accordance with [Appellate] Rule 22(C),” and is stated “in narrative form.” App. R. 46(A)(6). Elrod's Statement of Facts satisfies none of these requirements. Contrary to Appellate Rule 22(C), its factual assertions are supported only by garbled, non-conforming references that do not identify the volume and page where the material appears. And rather than offering a neutral narrative, Elrod's Statement of Facts section devolves into argument.

[8] Third, Elrod's brief violates Appellate Rule 46(A)(8). That rule requires an appellant's brief to include an “Argument” section with the appellant's contentions “supported by cogent reasoning” and “citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on.” App. R. 46(A)(8)(a). Another subsection of this rule further requires “a concise statement of the applicable standard of review” for each issue. App. R. 46(A)(8)(b). Elrod's brief contains no standard of review.

[9] In addition, Elrod contends that a novation extinguished his liability and that equitable estoppel bars Landlord's claim. However, these claims, unsupported by any citation to legal authority, rest on Elrod's assertions alone. For example, Elrod's unsupported novation argument baldly concludes: “Once [Landlord] accepted the new tenant Dan and verbally released [Elrod], the original obligation was legally dead.” Appellant's Brief at 11.

[10] Elrod's brief as a whole thus lacks the cogent argument our rules require. “We demand cogent argument supported with adequate citation to authority because it promotes impartiality in the appellate tribunal.” Young v. Butts, 685 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). “A court which must search the record and make up its own arguments because a party has not adequately presented them runs the risk of becoming an advocate rather than an adjudicator.” Id. We will not assume that role nor will we address arguments “too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.” Basic, 58 N.E.3d at 984 (quoting Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)).

[11] Given Elrod's noncompliance with our Appellate Rules—most notably his brief's lack of cogency—his claims are waived. Id. at 985. Because Elrod bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error and his briefing prevents us from reaching the merits of his claims, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Weissmann, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.