Marion Hoosier and Antwon Baymon v. Terry Riddle and Rebecca Riddle (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 Aug 08 2019, 8:34 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

APPELLANTS PRO SE Marion Hoosier Antwon Baymon Anderson, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Marion Hoosier and Antwon August 8, 2019 Baymon, Court of Appeals Case No. Appellants-Defendants, 18A-SC-961 Appeal from the Madison Circuit v. Court The Honorable Thomas L. Clem, Terry Riddle and Rebecca Judge Riddle, The Honorable Stephen Clase, Appellees-Plaintiffs. Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 48C05-1801-SC-14

Barteau, Senior Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-961 | August 8, 2019 Page 1 of 7

Statement of the Case [1] Marion Hoosier and Antwon Baymon appeal the small claims court’s entry of

judgment in favor of Terry Riddle and Rebecca Riddle (“the Riddles”). We

dismiss.

Issue [2] Hoosier and Baymon claim the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of

the Riddles, but the dispositive issue is whether this appeal was timely filed.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On January 4, 2018, the Riddles filed a Notice of Small Claim against Hoosier

and Baymon. The precise nature of the parties’ dispute is unclear, but the

Riddles claimed Hoosier and Baymon owed them $6,000 for damage to their

vehicle. The small claims court scheduled a bench trial for January 25, 2018.

The Chronological Case Summary indicates that Hoosier and Baymon were

served with the Notice of Small Claim as follows: “copy left and mailed.”

Appellants’ App. Vol. 2, p. 2. [4] The small claims court held the bench trial as scheduled on January 25. After

the hearing, the court issued an order in which it stated the Riddles were

present, but Hoosier and Baymon had failed to appear. The court further

indicated proper service had been issued to Hoosier and Baymon. Finally, the

court determined it had heard evidence “on . . . the record” and issued a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-961 | August 8, 2019 Page 2 of 7

judgment in favor of the Riddles in the amount of $6,000, plus court costs and

eight percent annual interest. Id. at 12. [5] Later in the day on January 25, Hoosier and Baymon filed a request for a new

trial with a different judge. They claimed they had arrived “later than the

plaintiff,” and the small claims court had refused to hear their evidence and

show them the Riddles’ evidence. Id. at 11. Hoosier and Baymon further

claimed the judge was biased against them. On February 6, the court denied

Hoosier and Baymon’s request for a new trial and determined the January 25

judgment was confirmed. [6] On March 5, the Riddles filed with the small claims court a request to intercept

Hoosier and Baymon’s tax refunds to satisfy the judgment. The court

scheduled a hearing on proceedings supplemental for April 4. On April 3,

Baymon filed a request for a “continuance or appeal” and further indicated he

was hiring a lawyer. Id. at 16. [7] On April 4, the small claims court held the previously scheduled hearing on

proceedings supplemental. After the hearing, the court issued an order stating

as follows:

Plaintiff appears in person. Defendant appears in person. Defendant confirms address. Defendants disagree with judgment. Defendants advised to pay or appeal. The court grants defendants 30 days from this date to file a belated appeal. Defendants acknowledged understands [sic]. Cause reset for review hearing on 6/8/2018, at 1:30 p.m. to check status.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-961 | August 8, 2019 Page 3 of 7

Id. at 18. Hoosier and Baymon filed a Notice of Appeal on April 27, 2018.

This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision [8] Hoosier and Baymon challenge the small claims court’s rulings, but we have

determined that their appeal is untimely. A Notice of Appeal must be filed

within thirty days of the trial court’s issuance of a final judgment or a ruling on

motion to correct error. Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(1). “Unless the Notice of

Appeal is timely filed, the right to appeal shall be forfeited except as provided

by P.C.R. 2.” App. R. 9(A)(5). The Indiana Supreme Court has explained,

“[i]n essence a party loses his or her right to appeal for failing to file timely a

Notice of Appeal.” In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind. 2014). [9] In their Notice of Appeal, Hoosier and Baymon stated they were appealing the

small claims court’s January 25, 2018 final judgment and February 7, 2018

denial of their request for a new trial. Even if we treat Hoosier and Baymon’s

request for a new trial as a motion to correct error, they did not file their Notice

of Appeal until April 27, 2018, more than thirty days after the denial of their

request, and their attempt to appeal those decisions is untimely. See Estate of

Mills-McGoffney v. Modesitt, 78 N.E.3d 700, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (appellant

waived right to appeal trial court’s striking of complaint and denial of motion

for summary judgment; Notice of Appeal filed after the thirty-day deadline). [10] On April 4, 2018, the small claims court granted Hoosier and Baymon thirty

days to file a belated appeal, and Hoosier and Baymon filed their Notice of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-961 | August 8, 2019 Page 4 of 7

Appeal within that deadline. We conclude the court lacked the authority to

grant an extension to file a Notice of Appeal. Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(5)

states that certain appellants may seek a belated appeal under Indiana Post-

Conviction Rule 2, but that rule applies to criminal cases, not to civil actions

such as a small claims proceeding. See Wooten v. State, 946 N.E.2d 616, 623

(Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (appeal dismissed; appellant could not seek a belated

appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2 for the revocation of his probation, which

is a civil proceeding). [11] Even if Hoosier and Baymon’s appeal were timely, their failure to comply with

the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure would prevent us from addressing the

merits of their claims. Pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as

licensed attorneys. Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

“We will not become an ‘advocate for a party, or address arguments that are

inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.’” Id. at

984 (quoting Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2014), trans. denied). While we prefer to decide issues on the merits, where

an appellant’s noncompliance with appellate rules is so substantial as to impede

our consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived. Id. [12] An appellant’s brief must include a table of authorities, a statement of issues, a

statement of case describing the procedural history, a summary of argument,

and an argument section, among other requirements. Ind. Appellate Rule

46(A). Hoosier and Baymon’s seven-page brief consists of a “statement of

grounds” and “supporting facts.” Appellants’ Br. p. 2. In addition, the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-961 | August 8, 2019 Page 5 of 7

argument section must contain the appellant’s contentions on the issues,

supported by “cogent reasoning” and “citations to the authorities, statutes, and

the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on.” Ind. Appellate Rule

46(A). It must also include a “concise statement of the applicable standard of

review.” Id. Hoosier and Baymon’s statement of grounds, which we consider

as similar to an argument section, does not contain any citations to legal

authorities discussing the standard of review. In addition, they do not cite any

authorities in support of their allegations of error. [13] Finally, when filing a Notice of Appeal, an appellant is required to request a

transcript of all portions of the proceeding “necessary to present fairly and

decide the issues on appeal.” Ind. Appellate Rule 9(F)(5). Hoosier and

Baymon failed to request a transcript of the January 25, 2018 hearing, even

though the small claims court conducted that hearing on the record. A

transcript of that hearing is necessary to address Hoosier and Baymon’s claim

that they appeared for the hearing, but the small claims court refused to hear

their evidence. Hoosier and Baymon’s extensive noncompliance with the

Appellate Rules has impeded our consideration of the issues, and we would

deem their claims waived even if their appeal were timely. See Ramsey v. Review

Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486, 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)

(appellant’s appeal deemed waived for failure to provide cogent reasoning and

citations to authority in appellant’s brief).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-961 | August 8, 2019 Page 6 of 7

Conclusion [14] For the reasons stated above, we dismiss this appeal.

[15] Appeal dismissed.

Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-961 | August 8, 2019 Page 7 of 7