Nina Caudle v. Roby Whittington (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral Dec 19 2019, 10:23 am
estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE
Nina Caudle
West Bloomfield, Michigan
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nina Caudle, December 19, 2019
Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-TR-332
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
Roby Whittington, The Honorable William E. Davis,
Appellee. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
45D05-1806-TR-16
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-TR-332| December 19, 2019 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] In May of 2018, Nina Caudle filed a petition to docket a trust for purposes of
reformation (“the Petition”). On January 15, 2019, the trial court granted
opposing party Roby Whittington’s motion to dismiss the Petition. Caudle
contends that the trial court erred by failing to provide her notice of the motion.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 24, 2018, Caudle filed the Petition after it seems that Northern Trust,
the apparent trustee, required clarification of the terms of Caudle’s Mother’s
trust before it would move the assets of her Mother’s estate into the trust. On
July 31, 2018, Caudle moved to withdraw her petition, and Caudle’s counsel
moved to withdraw her appearance after Caudle apparently terminated the
representation. Whittington, however, through counsel, moved to dismiss the
Petition with a request for sanctions. On December 18, 2018, the trial court
held a hearing on the motions, at which Caudle was not present. On January
15, 2019, the trial court granted all motions and ordered Caudle to pay
Whittington’s attorney fees in the amount of $4276.80.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Caudle contends that the trial court failed to provide her notice of Whittington’s
motion to dismiss, denying her the opportunity to contest said motion. As an
initial matter, we note that Caudle appeared in this appeal pro se. “Pro se
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-TR-332| December 19, 2019 Page 2 of 4
litigants without legal training are held to the same standard as trained counsel
and are required to follow procedural rules.” Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344
(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. One such procedural rule that Caudle was
required to follow was Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A), which required, in
relevant part:
(6) Statement of Facts. This statement shall describe the facts
relevant to the issues presented for review but need not repeat
what is in the statement of the case.
(a) The facts shall be supported by page references to the
Record on Appeal or Appendix in accordance with Rule
22(C).
(b) The facts shall be stated in accordance with the
standard of review appropriate to the judgment or order
being appealed.
[…]
(8) Argument. This section shall contain the appellant’s
contentions why the trial court or Administrative Agency
committed reversible error.
(a) 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.
(b) The argument must include for each issue a concise
statement of the applicable standard of review; this
statement may appear in the discussion of each issue or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-TR-332| December 19, 2019 Page 3 of 4
under a separate heading placed before the discussion of
the issues. In addition, the argument must include 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 any Administrative
Agency or trial court.
“Failure to present a cogent argument constitutes waiver of that issue for
appellate review.” Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App.
1999).
[4] Here, Caudle has failed to present a cogent argument and therefore has waived
appellate review. Among other deficiencies, Caudle’s statement of facts cites
orders and records which were not included in her Appendix, she fails to cite
any legal precedent, and her Appendix is devoid of a chronological case
summary or relevant procedural history sufficient to determine the merits of her
notice claim. Caudle’s failure to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)
prevents us from adequately reviewing her claim.
[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-TR-332| December 19, 2019 Page 4 of 4