Jeffrey Lambert v. Jill Fox (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 19, 2017
• Docket: 32A04-1611-DR-2552
• 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 court except for the purpose of establishing Apr 19 2017, 9:56 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE APPELLEE PRO SE Jeffrey Lambert, Jill Fox Indianapolis, Indiana Franklin, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jeffrey Lambert, April 19, 2017 Appellant-Plaintiff Court of Appeals Case No. 32A04-1611-DR-2552 v. Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court Jill Fox, The Honorable Matthew G. Appellee-Defendant. Hanson, Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 32D01-0207-DR-104

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1611-DR-2552 | April 19, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Appellant-Plaintiff Jeffrey Lambert appeals a ruling by the trial court which

ordered Lambert and his ex-wife Appellee-Defendant Jill Fox to split two-thirds

of their children’s college expenses. Because Lambert has waived his claims

relating to the issues presented on appeal by failing to provide us with a cogent

argument or citations to authority sufficient to review his claims, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] While Lambert and Fox were married, they had two children together. At

some point while the children were still minors, a dissolution was filed. A

dissolution decree was entered on September 20, 2004. On October 6, 2016, the

trial court issued an order addressing numerous issues, including the fact that

the parties were to split two-thirds of the children’s college expenses so long as

the children maintained a grade point average of 2.75 or higher.

Discussion and Decision [3] Lambert contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay 1/3 of the

college expenses. Specifically, Lambert argues that the trial court’s ruling was

contrary to a modified dissolution decree. Further, Lambert asserts that the

two-thirds of the college expenses should be split between the parties by the

same percentages as child support instead of equally. We conclude, however,

that Lambert’s arguments are waived for failure to provide us with a cogent

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1611-DR-2552 | April 19, 2017 Page 2 of 4 argument and failure to cite relevant authorities. Indiana Rule of Appellate

Procedure 46(A) provides, in part, as follows:

(2) Table of Authorities. The table of authorities shall list each case, statute, rule, and other authority cited in the brief, with references to each page on which it is cited. The authorities shall be listed alphabetically or numerically, as applicable.

****

(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.

Among other deficiencies, Lambert’s brief contains no table of authorities, no

statement of the facts, no citations to any statutory or case law, and no

statement regarding the applicable standard of review.

[4] It is well settled that we will not consider an appellant’s assertion on appeal when he or she has not presented cogent argument supported by authority and references to the record as required by the rules. Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). We will not become an advocate for a party, and we will not address arguments that are either inappropriate, too poorly developed, or improperly expressed to be understood. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1611-DR-2552 | April 19, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Lambert’s

appellate brief falls short of what the Appellate rules require. Therefore,

his claims are waived for our consideration.

[5] The judgement of the trial court is affirmed.

Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A04-1611-DR-2552 | April 19, 2017 Page 4 of 4