Marion Hoosier and Antwon Baymon v. Terry Riddle and Rebecca Riddle (mem. dec.)
18A-SC-961
Ind. Ct. App.Aug 8, 2019Background
- Riddles sued Hoosier and Baymon in small claims court seeking $6,000 for vehicle damage; a bench trial was held Jan. 25, 2018.
- The court found the Riddles present but the defendants absent, entered judgment for $6,000 plus costs and interest, and confirmed proper service.
- Hoosier and Baymon filed a same-day request for a new trial; the court denied it on Feb. 6, 2018.
- Riddles sought to intercept tax refunds to satisfy the judgment; a proceedings-supplemental hearing occurred Apr. 4, 2018.
- At the Apr. 4 hearing the small claims court told defendants they had 30 days to file a belated appeal; defendants filed a Notice of Appeal on Apr. 27, 2018.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely and alternatively for substantial noncompliance with appellate rules (pro se brief defects, no transcript request).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Notice of Appeal was timely | Riddles: Appeal deadline passed; defendants filed late | Hoosier & Baymon: Attempted to appeal after court granted 30-day belated appeal | Appeal untimely; Notice of Appeal filed beyond 30-day rule; court lacked authority to extend deadline |
| Whether the small claims court could grant a belated appeal | Riddles: Court cannot authorize extension for civil cases | Hoosier & Baymon: Apr. 4 order effectively granted belated appeal | Court lacked authority; Post-Conviction Rule 2 (belated appeals) applies to criminal/post-conviction matters only |
| Whether pro se status excuses noncompliance with appellate rules | Riddles: Appellate rules must be followed; pro se held to same standard | Hoosier & Baymon: Pro se brief and filings suffice to raise issues | Pro se litigants held to same standards; substantial noncompliance may waive issues |
| Necessity of transcript from Jan. 25 hearing | Riddles: Transcript required to review claimed denial of opportunity to present evidence | Hoosier & Baymon: Did not request transcript; claimed they appeared and were refused | Transcript was necessary; failure to request it impeded review and supports dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (timely filing of Notice of Appeal is essential; failure forfeits right to appeal)
- Estate of Mills-McGoffney v. Modesitt, 78 N.E.3d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (untimely Notice of Appeal results in waiver of appellate rights)
- Wooten v. State, 946 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (Post-Conviction Rule 2 relief not available for civil matters)
- Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (pro se litigants are held to same legal standards as attorneys)
- Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate courts will not act as advocate for poorly developed arguments)
- Ramsey v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (appellate claims may be deemed waived for failure to provide cogent reasoning and authorities)