Phillip Grigalanz v. Kristi Grigalanz (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 24, 2020
• Docket: 19A-DR-3054
• 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 Jul 24 2020, 8:40 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

APPELLANT PRO SE Phillip Grigalanz Hillsboro, Illinois

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Phillip Grigalanz, July 24, 2020 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-DR-3054 v. Appeal from the Porter Superior Court Kristi Grigalanz, The Honorable Roger V. Bradford, Appellee-Petitioner Judge Trial Court Cause No. 64D01-1508-DR-6999

May, Judge.

[1] Phillip Grigalanz (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s November 27, 2019,

order, which returned Husband’s filings to him without consideration because

the cause under which Husband filed the paperwork was closed. We affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-3054 | July 24, 2020 Page 1 of 5 Facts and Procedural History [2] On August 17, 2015, Kristi Grigalanz (“Wife”) petitioned the court for

dissolution of her marriage to Husband. A chronological case summary

notation dated November 19, 2015, states, “court receives letter/motion for

modification of custody from husband, court denies husband’s motion without

hearing.” (App. Vol II at 3) (capitalization removed). On May 10, 2016, the

court entered a summary decree of dissolution of marriage. Husband filed

various motions after the trial court entered the decree of dissolution, and the

trial court denied each of these motions.

[3] Husband filed a notice of appeal on November 30, 2016, and this court

subsequently dismissed his appeal with prejudice. Even after his appeal was

dismissed, Husband continued to file documents with the trial court. A

chronological case summary notation dated April 6, 2017, states, “court

receives husband’s motion for ruling: Court of Appeals dismissed husband’s

appeal with prejudice. No further filings will be accepted.” (Id. at 8)

(capitalization removed). Husband continued to send documents to the trial

court. On November 27, 2019, the trial court issued an order, stating: “The

Court returns [Husband’s] filings to him without review as this Cause is

closed.” (Notice of Appeal at 5.)

Discussion and Decision

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-3054 | July 24, 2020 Page 2 of 5 [4] Initially, we note Wife did not file an appellee’s brief. Therefore, we will not

develop arguments on her behalf and will reverse if Husband demonstrates

prima facie error. WindGate Properties, LLC v. Sanders, 93 N.E.3d 809, 813 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2018). “Prima facie, in this context, means at first sight, on first

appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. Nonetheless, we must still correctly apply

the law to the facts in the record to determine if reversal is required. Id.

[5] Even though Husband proceeds on appeal pro se, he is held to the same

standard as a trained attorney, including adherence to established rules of

procedure. See Tipton v. Estate of Hofmann, 118 N.E.3d 771, 776 (Ind. Ct. App.

2019). “‘It is Appellant’s duty to present an adequate record clearly showing

the alleged error. Where he fails to do so, the issue is deemed waived.’”

Thompson v. State, 761 N.E.2d 467, 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Jackson v.

State, 496 N.E.2d 32, 33 (Ind. 1986)). An appellant’s appendix is meant to

present this court with copies of those parts of the record necessary for us to

decide the issues presented. Ind. Appellate Rule 50. An appellant’s appendix is

required to include several documents, including the appealed judgment or

order and any “pleadings and other documents from the Clerk’s Record in

chronological order that are necessary for resolution of the issues raised on

appeal.” Id.

[6] In his brief, Husband argues the trial court abused its discretion by returning his

filings without review and deeming the case closed. Husband asserts he “has

filed various motions regarding [his] stepdaughter. Each of these motions were

[sic] denied without hearing. As such, issues surrounding [his] stepdaughter

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-3054 | July 24, 2020 Page 3 of 5 have never truly been adjudicated.” (Appellant’s Br. at 9.) Courts have an

interest in promoting finality and judicial economy by preventing re-litigation of

issues already decided. Northrop Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 807 N.E.2d 70, 86

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Husband’s statement of facts indicates he

had filed some of the motions pertaining to his stepdaughter before he filed a

“Petition to Transfer” on September 23, 2016. (Appellant’s Br. at 6.) To the

extent Husband is simply attempting to relitigate issues already decided, the

trial court is well within its discretion to reject such attempts and direct its

resources elsewhere. See Gorman v. Gorman, 871 N.E.2d 1019, 1023 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2007) (“By her conduct, [appellant] rejects the legal finality of both trial

and appellate court decisions. . . . As a result, valuable judicial resources are

spent considering the same meritless legal and factual questions presented by

[appellant] over and over again.”), trans. denied.

[7] However, Husband’s appendix is so deficient that it is impossible for us to

conduct a meaningful review of his claims. His appendix consists solely of a

copy of the chronological case summary. He does not include a copy of the

decree of dissolution; copies of the documents he sent that prompted the

November 27, 2019, order; or any other documents from the trial court record.

Consequently, Husband has failed to prove the trial court committed any error.

See Wilhoite v. State, 7 N.E.3d 350, 355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (holding defendant

failed to present a sufficient record to permit review of his claim that he was not

tried by a jury of his peers).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-3054 | July 24, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Conclusion [8] Husband failed to present a record on appeal that would permit us to address

his claims. Therefore, we affirm the trial court.

[9] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-3054 | July 24, 2020 Page 5 of 5