Nina Caudle v. Roby Whittington (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 19, 2019
• Docket: 19A-TR-332
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral Dec 19 2019, 10:23 am

estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE Nina Caudle West Bloomfield, Michigan

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Nina Caudle, December 19, 2019 Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-TR-332 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court Roby Whittington, The Honorable William E. Davis, Appellee. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45D05-1806-TR-16

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-TR-332| December 19, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] In May of 2018, Nina Caudle filed a petition to docket a trust for purposes of

reformation (“the Petition”). On January 15, 2019, the trial court granted

opposing party Roby Whittington’s motion to dismiss the Petition. Caudle

contends that the trial court erred by failing to provide her notice of the motion.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On May 24, 2018, Caudle filed the Petition after it seems that Northern Trust,

the apparent trustee, required clarification of the terms of Caudle’s Mother’s

trust before it would move the assets of her Mother’s estate into the trust. On

July 31, 2018, Caudle moved to withdraw her petition, and Caudle’s counsel

moved to withdraw her appearance after Caudle apparently terminated the

representation. Whittington, however, through counsel, moved to dismiss the

Petition with a request for sanctions. On December 18, 2018, the trial court

held a hearing on the motions, at which Caudle was not present. On January

15, 2019, the trial court granted all motions and ordered Caudle to pay

Whittington’s attorney fees in the amount of $4276.80.

Discussion and Decision [3] Caudle contends that the trial court failed to provide her notice of Whittington’s

motion to dismiss, denying her the opportunity to contest said motion. As an

initial matter, we note that Caudle appeared in this appeal pro se. “Pro se Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-TR-332| December 19, 2019 Page 2 of 4 litigants without legal training are held to the same standard as trained counsel

and are required to follow procedural rules.” Evans v. State, 809 N.E.2d 338, 344

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. One such procedural rule that Caudle was

required to follow was Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A), which required, in

relevant part:

(6) Statement of Facts. This statement shall describe the facts relevant to the issues presented for review but need not repeat what is in the statement of the case.

(a) The facts shall be supported by page references to the Record on Appeal or Appendix in accordance with Rule 22(C).

(b) The facts shall be stated in accordance with the standard of review appropriate to the judgment or order being appealed.

[…]

(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.

(b) The argument must include for each issue a concise statement of the applicable standard of review; this statement may appear in the discussion of each issue or Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-TR-332| December 19, 2019 Page 3 of 4 under a separate heading placed before the discussion of the issues. In addition, the argument must include a brief statement of the procedural and substantive facts necessary for consideration of the issues presented on appeal, including a statement of how the issues relevant to the appeal were raised and resolved by any Administrative Agency or trial court.

“Failure to present a cogent argument constitutes waiver of that issue for

appellate review.” Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App.

1999).

[4] Here, Caudle has failed to present a cogent argument and therefore has waived

appellate review. Among other deficiencies, Caudle’s statement of facts cites

orders and records which were not included in her Appendix, she fails to cite

any legal precedent, and her Appendix is devoid of a chronological case

summary or relevant procedural history sufficient to determine the merits of her

notice claim. Caudle’s failure to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)

prevents us from adequately reviewing her claim.

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

Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-TR-332| December 19, 2019 Page 4 of 4