Douglas Alan Dyson v. Whitley County Treasurer, Whitley County Auditor (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 9, 2019
• Docket: 18A-TS-2858
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any May 09 2019, 8:36 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Douglas Alan Dyson Elizabeth A. Deckard Columbia City, Indiana Matthew R. Shipman Bloom Gates Shipman & Whiteleather LLP Columbia City, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Douglas Alan Dyson, May 9, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-TS-2858 v. Appeal from the Whitley Circuit Court Whitley County Treasurer, The Honorable Matthew J. Whitley County Auditor, Rentschler, Judge Appellees-Plaintiffs Trial Court Cause No. 92C01-1810-TS-338

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] Douglas Alan Dyson owned real property in Whitley County. On August 6,

2018, the Whitley County Auditor served Dyson with a notice of tax sale,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-TS-2858 | May 9, 2019 Page 1 of 3 stating that he had failed to pay more than $10,000 in property taxes and

penalties. Dyson filed a rambling, eleven-page objection to the tax sale, in

which he claimed that he was not required to pay the taxes in question.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied Dyson’s objection and ordered his

property to be sold. The trial court’s order provides, in part:

Mr. Dyson’s arguments that his property should not be subject to taxes or tax sale are not cogent. The arguments consist of fragments of legalese which are taken from their context and weaponized without regard to logic, proper authority, or common sense. His insistence that land patents, Trial Rule 11, trusts, and subrogation have anything to do with this tax sale stand in stark contrast to the simple fact that real property is taxed in Indiana, and failing to pay those taxes will subject real property to tax sale pursuant to the Indiana Code.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 106.

[2] Dyson, pro se, now appeals, raising several issues. The Whitley County

Auditor and Treasurer argue that Dyson has waived all of them by “failing to

make coherent, cogent arguments supported by relevant law and the record.”

Appellee’s Br. p. 9. We agree. Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) provides

that the appellant’s 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 . . . .”; see also Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25

N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (explaining that we will not become

“an advocate for a party, or address arguments that are inappropriate or too

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-TS-2858 | May 9, 2019 Page 2 of 3 poorly developed or expressed to be understood”), trans. denied. Dyson’s

arguments, however, are nonsensical, incomprehensible, and unsupported by

proper legal authority. The bulk of Dyson’s arguments concern his

unsupported claim that he appointed the trial-court judge in this case, Judge

Matthew J. Rentschler, as trustee of his property. See Appellant’s Br. p. 11

(“Trustee Rentschler intentionally breached his judicial office in bad faith by

failing to respect and honor the same as a public trust and strive to maintain

and enhance confidence in the legal system, regarding the DOUGLAS ALAN

DYSON estate, with reckless indifference and breach as referenced by naming

Payor: Doug Dyson Trust.”). Dyson then ends his argument by alleging that

“Trustee Rentschler’s” breach “is against House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5,

1933; Pub. L. 73-10 and Article XIII of the United States Constitution, slavery

and involuntary servitude perpetrated by a fraudulent and unjust monetary

pledging system.” Appellant’s Reply Br. p. 16. We agree with the trial court’s

apt assessment of Dyson’s arguments and therefore find that he has waived our

review of his contentions for lack of cogent argument.

[3] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-TS-2858 | May 9, 2019 Page 3 of 3