Curtis Hessler, Appellant-Defendant v. III (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] In April 2025, Curtis Hessler filed a “Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty” against Roland B. Wilson III. Appealed Order p. 1. Following a bench trial on October 22, 2025, the trial court entered a judgment on the evidence pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 50(A)(1), finding Hessler “failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claim for breach of fiduciary duty.” Id. Hessler appeals. We conclude that Hessler waived his arguments by failing to comply with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

[2] Hessler, who proceeds pro se, is held to the same standards as a licensed attorney and, “therefore, must be prepared to accept the consequences of his or her action.” Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. “While we prefer to decide cases on their merits, alleged errors are waived where an appellant's noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors.” Id.

[3] Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(5)-(7) provides that the Appellant's brief shall contain the following sections under separate headings: a Statement of Case, which is a statement that “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[;]” a Statement of Facts, which “shall describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review” and shall be supported by references to the record; and a Summary of Argument, which “should contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief” and not merely repeat the argument headings. Hessler's brief does not contain any of these sections, the absence of which leaves us to guess or search the record to garner context for this appeal; we will do neither.

[4] Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) provides that an appellant's argument must contain, among other things, “the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning” and “citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]” Hessler's brief makes many legal assertions but does not contain a single citation to any legal authority. In addition, the rule requires “a concise statement of the applicable standard of review” for each issue, and “a brief statement of the procedural and substantive facts necessary for consideration of the issues presented on appeal, including a statement of how the issues relevant to the appeal were raised and resolved by ․ [the] trial court.” Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8). Hessler's Argument fails to satisfy these requirements.

[5] Although Hessler includes a standard of review in his argument, it is unsupported by any relevant authority. As to procedural or substantive facts necessary for consideration of his argument, Hessler recounts several pieces of evidence and testimony offered at trial. But he fails to demonstrate how this evidence meets the requisite showing for us to reverse the trial court's grant of judgment on the evidence. A “[j]udgment [on the evidence] may be entered only where there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom to support an essential element of the claim.” State v. Casada, 825 N.E.2d 936, 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Hessler wholly fails to explain the elements of his original claim, let alone how the evidence supported all essential elements of the claim, as would be required to warrant reversal.

[6] Given the lack of cogent argument and other significant rule violations, Hessler has waived appellate review. We therefore affirm the trial court's entry of judgment on the evidence.

[7] Affirmed.

Scheele, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.