Thomas E. Lynch v. Arthur H. Huser

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 24, 2012
• Docket: 49A05-1204-PL-162
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:

THOMAS E. LYNCH LOWELL A. SHROYER Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED Sep 24 2012, 9:34 am

IN THE CLERK of the supreme court, COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA court of appeals and tax court

THOMAS E. LYNCH, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A05-1204-PL-162 ) ARTHUR H. HUSER, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Theodore M. Sosin, Judge The Honorable Burnett Caudill, Magistrate Cause No. 49D02-1104-PL-15955

September 24, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge Thomas E. Lynch appeals from the trial court's order entering judgment in favor of

Arthur H. Huser.

We affirm.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Indiana Appellate Rule 46 (A)(8)(a) provides as follows:

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.

Here, Appellant has failed to support his argument with cogent reasoning and citation to

authorities in support of his position. The failure to make a cogent argument is equivalent to

a failure to file a brief. Bright v. Kuehl, 650 N.E.2d 311, 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

Consequently, the issues presented here on appeal are waived, and the decision of the trial

court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

NAJAM, J., and MAY, J., concur.