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

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