Nancy L. Robinson v. James Robinson (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 13 2017, 8:26 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Nancy L. Robinson Tim E. Staggs
West Union, Illinois Columbus, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nancy L. Robinson, January 13, 2017
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
03A05-1602-DR-408
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Superior Court
James Robinson, The Honorable Kathleen Tighe
Appellee-Petitioner. Coriden
Trial Court Cause No.
03D02-1505-DR-2723
Barnes, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Nancy Robinson appeals the decree dissolving her marriage to James
Robinson. We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A05-1602-DR-408 | January 13, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Issues
[2] Nancy raises two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as
whether James’s alleged mental health diagnosis should have disqualified him
from seeking a dissolution.
Facts1
[3] Nancy and James were married in 1989. They have two adult children. In
April 2015, they separated, and in May 2015, James filed a petition for
dissolution. Nancy alleges that James suffers from depression and that she
previously sought an order of civil commitment.
[4] On January 19, 2016, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing in this matter,
and on January 26, 2016, the trial court issued its decree dissolving the parties’
marriage. Nancy now appeals.
Analysis
[5] Indiana Appellate Rule 46 sets out the substantive requirements for an
appellant’s brief. That rule provides: “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,
1
We note that Nancy did not request a transcript of the evidentiary hearing in this matter. Although her
Appellant’s Brief contains a “Facts” section, it is difficult to follow and contains only a recitation of
anecdotes involving the parties. It does not contain the “facts relevant to the issues presented for review” as
required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(6). We, therefore, rely, in part, on the facts as set out in the trial
court’s decree, a copy of which is attached to the notice of appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A05-1602-DR-408 | January 13, 2017 Page 2 of 4
statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on . . . .”
Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). “A litigant who fails to support his arguments
with appropriate citations to legal authority and record evidence waives those
arguments for our review.” Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015).
[6] Whenever possible, however, “‘we prefer to resolve cases on the merits’ instead
of on procedural grounds like waiver.” Id. (quoting Roberts v. Cmty. Hospitals of
Indiana, Inc., 897 N.E.2d 458, 469 (Ind. 2008)). We will address the merits of a
party’s claim unless we find “‘noncompliance with the rule sufficiently
substantial to impede our consideration of the issue raised.’” Pierce, 29 N.E.3d
at 1267 (quoting Guardiola v. State, 268 Ind. 404, 406, 375 N.E.2d 1105, 1107
(Ind. 1978)). We note that “a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as a
trained attorney and is afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of being
self-represented.” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
[7] The “Argument” portion of Nancy’s Appellant’s Brief consists of merely two
sentences and includes no citations to authority or the record on appeal.
Although we acknowledge our preference for resolving cases on their merits,
Nancy’s brief falls so short of the requirements set out in Appellate Rule 46 that
we are unable to consider the issues she attempts to raise. We conclude Nancy
has waived our review of her appeal.
Conclusion
[8] Nancy wholly fails to present a cogent argument supported by citations to legal
authority and record evidence. Her brief’s shortcomings impede our review of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A05-1602-DR-408 | January 13, 2017 Page 3 of 4
her appeal, and we conclude she has waived review of the issues she raises. We
affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A05-1602-DR-408 | January 13, 2017 Page 4 of 4