Sondra Rabin v. S.T.M. Enterprises, LLC (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 20, 2016
• Docket: 45A04-1604-SC-958
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Oct 20 2016, 9:38 am

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK precedent or cited before any court except for the Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, and Tax Court

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE Sondra Rabin Chicago, Illinois

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Sondra Rabin, October 20, 2016

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 45A04-1604-SC-958

v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court S.T.M. Enterprises, LLC, The Hon. Calvin D. Hawkins, Judge Trial Court Cause No. Appellee-Plaintiff. 45D02-1505-SC-2

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary [1] In this small-claims appeal, Appellant-Defendant Sondra Rabin appeals from

the $575.00 judgment against her entered in favor of Appellee-Plaintiff S.T.M.

Enterprises, LLC (“STM”). Because we conclude that Rabin has failed to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1604-SC-958 | October 20, 2016 Page 1 of 4 provide us with a cogent argument or record sufficient to review her claims on

appeal, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In the fall of 2012, Rabin contacted STM about resodding her parents’ gravesite

in Hammond. STM informed Rabin that the requested work would cost

between $475.00 and $575.00. When Rabin authorized that the work be done,

STM resodded the gravesite in October of 2012 and billed Rabin $575.00.

Rabin, denying that she had authorized STM to resod the gravesite and

apparently also dissatisfied with the work, did not pay the bill, and, on or about

April 8, 2015, STM brought suit against her. Following a bench trial on

January 8, 2016, the trial court entered judgment in favor of STM for $575.00.

On March 29, 2016, the trial court denied Rabin’s motion to correct error.

Discussion and Decision [3] Rabin contends that the trial court erred in finding that a contract existed

between Rabin and STM and that its orders, specifically its order of judgment

and the order denying Rabin’s motion to correct error, were otherwise

defective. We conclude, however, that Rabin’s arguments are waived for

failure to make cogent arguments. Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure

46(A)(8) provides, in part, as follows:

(8) Argument. This section shall contain the appellant’s contentions why the trial court or Administrative Agency committed reversible error.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1604-SC-958 | October 20, 2016 Page 2 of 4 (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 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.

[4] Among the other significant deficiencies in Rabin’s Appellant’s Brief,1 the three-

sentence “argument” contains no citations to the record, no citations to any

statutory or case law, and no statements regarding the applicable standards of

review.

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.

1 Rabin’s Appellant’s Brief contains no table of authorities, statement of facts, or summary of argument. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A). Additionally, Rabin did not file an Appendix. App. R. 49 (“The appellant shall file its Appendix with its appellant’s brief.”) (emphasis added).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1604-SC-958 | October 20, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Lasater v. Lasater, 809 N.E.2d 380, 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

[5] Rabin’s presentation of the issues on appeal falls far short of what the Appellate

Rules require. Consequently, they are all waived for our consideration.

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

Pyle, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1604-SC-958 | October 20, 2016 Page 4 of 4