MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 14 2018, 7:02 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANTS PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Samuel M. Walker William H. Mullis Nancy Mae Walker William H. Mullis, P.C. Limon, Colorado Mitchell, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Samuel M. Walker and Nancy November 14, 2018 Mae Walker, Court of Appeals Case No. Appellants-Petitioners, 18A-MI-839 Appeal from the Orange Circuit v. Court The Honorable Steven L. Owen, Town of Orleans, Judge Appellee-Respondent. Trial Court Cause No. 59C01-1611-MI-306
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case [1] Samuel M. Walker and Nancy Mae Walker appeal the trial court’s judgment
for the Town of Orleans (“the Town”) on the Town’s motion for costs, which Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 1 of 7 judgment the court entered after a bench trial. The Walkers purport to raise
nine issues for our review, but we address only the following dispositive issue:
whether the Walkers have carried their burden on appeal to demonstrate trial
court error.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [3] In February of 2016, a fire severely damaged the Walkers’ two-story residence
near the Orleans town square. Thereafter, the Town gave the Walkers notice
that the Walkers had to clear the debris from the location, but the Walkers did
not do so. Instead, in November, the Walkers filed a petition for injunctive
relief against the Town. In their petition, the Walkers acknowledged that the
Town had “proceeded under the Unsafe Building Code in an attempt to
clear . . . the unsightly mess and debris from the burned house” and that the
Town had “been in communication” with the Walkers “relating to the clean up
of said property.” Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 7. However, the Walkers
“wishe[d] to complete the clean up of the property” themselves without having
to reimburse the Town for contractor work. Id. at 8.
[4] The trial court granted the Walkers’ request for a temporary restraining order
but instructed the Walkers to “proceed and continue with debris removal and
clearing of the property pending this matter.” Id. at 9. The Town then filed a
counter-petition for its own injunction against the Walkers due to their
continuing failure to clear the property. On December 2, after a hearing on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 2 of 7 both petitions, the court ordered the Walkers to clear the property no later than
December 12. The court found that, “if the property has not been certified as
clean by counsel [for the Town by that date, the Town] may enter upon said
property and clean. [The Town] may use city employees[ or] place the matter
for public bid, and the costs shall be assessed to [the Walkers].” Id. at 12. The
Walkers did not object to the court’s December 2016 instructions.
[5] Despite the court’s directives, the Walkers failed to clear the property, and the
Town eventually hired contractors to remove the debris, level the area, and
reseed. The Town then sought reimbursement from the Walkers by way of a
motion for costs in the trial court. In the trial court, the Walkers objected to the
Town’s requests for costs on the ground that the Town had not properly
followed the process required by law for giving the Walkers notice of the
Town’s actions; that the Town had not followed the process required by law for
obtaining bids from contractors; and that the Town had deprived the Walkers of
the process required by law in the manner in which the Town had cleared the
property. The Walkers then requested that the trial court order the Town to
pay the Walkers a money judgment of more than $57,000.
[6] The trial court held a fact-finding hearing on the parties’ requests. At that
hearing, when asked whether they had complied with the court’s December
2016 order to have the property cleared by December 12, 2016, the Walkers
conceded that work remained to be done on that date. Tr. Vol. II at 28. The
court then found for the Town and ordered the Walkers to reimburse the Town
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 3 of 7 $6,000 for costs incurred by the Town to clear the Walkers’ property. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision [7] The Walkers appeal the trial court’s judgment on the Town’s motion for costs,
which judgment the court entered after an evidentiary hearing. We review the
trial court’s judgment here, which is not supported by findings of fact and
conclusions thereon, under the general judgment standard. Under that
standard, “a judgment will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory
supported by the evidence.” J.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re S.D.), 2 N.E.3d
1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). A trial court’s judgment “comes to this court clothed
with a presumption of validity, and the appellant bears the burden of proving
that the trial court erred.” Consumer Attorney Servs., P.A. v. State, 71 N.E.3d 362,
364 (Ind. 2017) (quotation marks omitted).
[8] The Walkers have not carried their burden on appeal to show that the trial court
erred.1 Indeed, the “Argument” section of the Walkers’ brief on appeal is less
than thin—it is literally a blank page. Appellants’ Br. at 9. Suffice to say that a
blank page does not meet our appellate rules’ requirement of argument
supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authority. Ind. Appellate Rule
46(A)(8)(a). And it is not this Court’s place to invent arguments on behalf of
1 It is of no moment that the Walkers have proceeded pro se. “It is well settled that 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).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 4 of 7 the parties. See Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003); see
also J.R. v. State, 100 N.E.3d 256, 258 n.1 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam) (declining to
reach an issue “not raised and briefed” by the parties).
[9] And the other parts of the Walkers’ brief on appeal are not helpful. The
Statement of the Issues asserts nine errors, with one sentence devoted to each
assertion. The Statement of the Facts is eight sentences, which appear to
largely repeat the Statement of the Issues. And the Summary of the Argument
asserts, in total:
The Town over-reached its authority by removing personal property consisting of lumber, planking, bricks, sandstone stepping stones and sidewalk sections, gazebo concrete platform[,] and all trees, bushes, plants, to then level and seed.
All debris had been removed by appellants and basement filled prior to contract ratification.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 14 2018, 7:02 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANTS PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Samuel M. Walker William H. Mullis Nancy Mae Walker William H. Mullis, P.C. Limon, Colorado Mitchell, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Samuel M. Walker and Nancy November 14, 2018 Mae Walker, Court of Appeals Case No. Appellants-Petitioners, 18A-MI-839 Appeal from the Orange Circuit v. Court The Honorable Steven L. Owen, Town of Orleans, Judge Appellee-Respondent. Trial Court Cause No. 59C01-1611-MI-306
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case [1] Samuel M. Walker and Nancy Mae Walker appeal the trial court’s judgment
for the Town of Orleans (“the Town”) on the Town’s motion for costs, which Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 1 of 7 judgment the court entered after a bench trial. The Walkers purport to raise
nine issues for our review, but we address only the following dispositive issue:
whether the Walkers have carried their burden on appeal to demonstrate trial
court error.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [3] In February of 2016, a fire severely damaged the Walkers’ two-story residence
near the Orleans town square. Thereafter, the Town gave the Walkers notice
that the Walkers had to clear the debris from the location, but the Walkers did
not do so. Instead, in November, the Walkers filed a petition for injunctive
relief against the Town. In their petition, the Walkers acknowledged that the
Town had “proceeded under the Unsafe Building Code in an attempt to
clear . . . the unsightly mess and debris from the burned house” and that the
Town had “been in communication” with the Walkers “relating to the clean up
of said property.” Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 7. However, the Walkers
“wishe[d] to complete the clean up of the property” themselves without having
to reimburse the Town for contractor work. Id. at 8.
[4] The trial court granted the Walkers’ request for a temporary restraining order
but instructed the Walkers to “proceed and continue with debris removal and
clearing of the property pending this matter.” Id. at 9. The Town then filed a
counter-petition for its own injunction against the Walkers due to their
continuing failure to clear the property. On December 2, after a hearing on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 2 of 7 both petitions, the court ordered the Walkers to clear the property no later than
December 12. The court found that, “if the property has not been certified as
clean by counsel [for the Town by that date, the Town] may enter upon said
property and clean. [The Town] may use city employees[ or] place the matter
for public bid, and the costs shall be assessed to [the Walkers].” Id. at 12. The
Walkers did not object to the court’s December 2016 instructions.
[5] Despite the court’s directives, the Walkers failed to clear the property, and the
Town eventually hired contractors to remove the debris, level the area, and
reseed. The Town then sought reimbursement from the Walkers by way of a
motion for costs in the trial court. In the trial court, the Walkers objected to the
Town’s requests for costs on the ground that the Town had not properly
followed the process required by law for giving the Walkers notice of the
Town’s actions; that the Town had not followed the process required by law for
obtaining bids from contractors; and that the Town had deprived the Walkers of
the process required by law in the manner in which the Town had cleared the
property. The Walkers then requested that the trial court order the Town to
pay the Walkers a money judgment of more than $57,000.
[6] The trial court held a fact-finding hearing on the parties’ requests. At that
hearing, when asked whether they had complied with the court’s December
2016 order to have the property cleared by December 12, 2016, the Walkers
conceded that work remained to be done on that date. Tr. Vol. II at 28. The
court then found for the Town and ordered the Walkers to reimburse the Town
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 3 of 7 $6,000 for costs incurred by the Town to clear the Walkers’ property. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision [7] The Walkers appeal the trial court’s judgment on the Town’s motion for costs,
which judgment the court entered after an evidentiary hearing. We review the
trial court’s judgment here, which is not supported by findings of fact and
conclusions thereon, under the general judgment standard. Under that
standard, “a judgment will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory
supported by the evidence.” J.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs. (In re S.D.), 2 N.E.3d
1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014). A trial court’s judgment “comes to this court clothed
with a presumption of validity, and the appellant bears the burden of proving
that the trial court erred.” Consumer Attorney Servs., P.A. v. State, 71 N.E.3d 362,
364 (Ind. 2017) (quotation marks omitted).
[8] The Walkers have not carried their burden on appeal to show that the trial court
erred.1 Indeed, the “Argument” section of the Walkers’ brief on appeal is less
than thin—it is literally a blank page. Appellants’ Br. at 9. Suffice to say that a
blank page does not meet our appellate rules’ requirement of argument
supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authority. Ind. Appellate Rule
46(A)(8)(a). And it is not this Court’s place to invent arguments on behalf of
1 It is of no moment that the Walkers have proceeded pro se. “It is well settled that 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).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 4 of 7 the parties. See Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003); see
also J.R. v. State, 100 N.E.3d 256, 258 n.1 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam) (declining to
reach an issue “not raised and briefed” by the parties).
[9] And the other parts of the Walkers’ brief on appeal are not helpful. The
Statement of the Issues asserts nine errors, with one sentence devoted to each
assertion. The Statement of the Facts is eight sentences, which appear to
largely repeat the Statement of the Issues. And the Summary of the Argument
asserts, in total:
The Town over-reached its authority by removing personal property consisting of lumber, planking, bricks, sandstone stepping stones and sidewalk sections, gazebo concrete platform[,] and all trees, bushes, plants, to then level and seed.
All debris had been removed by appellants and basement filled prior to contract ratification.
Many due process steps were omitted by the Town to achieve [its] objective.
Appellants’ Br. at 8.
[10] We surmise that the Walkers are dissatisfied with the process the Town used to
obtain bids, hire a contractor, remove the debris from the Walkers’ property,
and file its notice of claim. However, at no point do the Walkers discuss the
evidence most favorable to the trial court’s judgment, which is the only
evidence we may consider on appeal. Further, at no point do the Walkers
discuss the effect their petition for injunctive relief had on the Town’s process. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Indeed, after the Walkers had filed their petition and invoked the jurisdiction of
the court, the remainder of the process occurred under court supervision.
[11] The Walkers disregard the fact that, when they filed their petition, they
acknowledged that the Town had, to that point, “proceeded under the Unsafe
Building Code,” had “placed the clean up of the property out for bid
and . . . secured a contractor,” and had “been in communication[]” with the
Walkers. Appellants’ App. Vol. II at 7-8. They disregard the fact that, in
December of 2016, the trial court expressly authorized the Town to enter onto
the Walkers’ property to clear it, either with the Town’s employees or with
contractors, if the Walkers had failed to have the property cleared by December
12, 2016. And they do not suggest on appeal that the trial court lacked the
authority to give those instructions or that the Town’s actions were not in
conformity with those instructions.
[12] In sum, the Walkers have not carried their burden on appeal to demonstrate
that the trial court erred when the court ordered the Walkers to clear the
property by December 12, 2016. The trial court gave the Walkers notice and an
ample opportunity to resolve the code violation. Then the court did exactly
what the court had informed the Walkers it would do, namely, that, should
they fail to clear the property by that date, the court would assess the Town’s
costs for the removal of the debris, the leveling of the area, and reseeding
against them. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[13] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 6 of 7 Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MI-839 | November 14, 2018 Page 7 of 7