Preview:

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






IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA




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MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

Download 09241210jsk.pdf

Indiana Law