MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 27 2015, 8:25 am
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
Fathollah Partow Robert D. Roache, II
Westfield, Indiana Carmel, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Fathollah Partow, October 27, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A02-1410-SC-730
v. Appeal from the Hamilton
Superior Court
Countryside Homeowners The Honorable William P.
Association, Inc., Greenaway, Magistrate
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No.
29D04-1404-SC-3778
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Fathollah Partow, pro se, appeals the small claims judgment entered against
him in favor of Countryside Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Countryside
HOA”). Partow owns a townhome within a Westfield neighborhood under the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1410-SC-730 | October 27, 2015 Page 1 of 4
direction of Countryside HOA. Partow failed to pay the 2013 and 2014
homeowner’s association assessments due on the property. Thereafter,
Countryside HOA filed a small claims action against Partow seeking damages
for the unpaid assessments for 2013 and 2014, late fees, administrative fees, and
attorney’s fees.
[2] A bench trial was held on September 17, 2014. Partow appeared pro se and
Countryside HOA appeared by counsel. Countryside HOA submitted copies of
the neighborhood declarations and covenants, as well as its policies for
determining and collecting annual assessments from homeowners. Countryside
HOA also provided evidence of Partow’s unpaid assessments and fees, and the
attorney’s fees Countryside HOA had incurred in the collection process.
Partow admitted that he failed to pay the 2013 and 2014 assessments but argued
that Countryside HOA was just trying to “destroy” him and that Countryside
HOA should have let him pay his delinquent assessments in monthly
installments of $35. Tr. at 24. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court
awarded Countryside HOA $1912.75 in damages.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Partow appeals the judgment of a small claims court. Judgments in small
claims actions are “subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and
statutes.” Ind. Small Claims Rule 11(A). On appeal, we review for clear error
and we will presume that the trial court correctly applied the law. Hutchison v.
Trilogy Health Servs., LLC, 2 N.E.3d 802, 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We will not
reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, but will consider
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1410-SC-730 | October 27, 2015 Page 2 of 4
only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences to
be drawn therefrom. Id. We are particularly deferential to the trial court in
small claims actions because the trials are informal with the sole objective of
dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the substantive rules
of law. Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1067-68 (Ind. 2006).
[4] “It is a cardinal rule of appellate review that the appellant bears the burden of
showing reversible error by the record, as all presumptions are in favor of the
trial court’s judgment.” Marion-Adams Sch. Corp. v. Boone, 840 N.E.2d 462, 468
(Ind. Ct. App. 2006). We note that Partow proceeded pro se below and has
also chosen to proceed pro se in this appeal. It is well settled that “a litigant
who chooses to proceed pro se will be held to the same rules of procedure as
trained legal counsel and must be prepared to accept the consequences of his
action.” Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “While
we prefer to decide cases on their merits, we will deem alleged errors waived
where an appellant’s noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is so
substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors.” Id.
[5] Here, Partow’s noncompliance with our appellate rules has substantially
impeded our review. Although he has failed to comply with a number of
appellate rules, we will concentrate on the most egregious violation. Indiana
Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires the appellant’s contentions to be supported
by cogent reasoning and “citations to the authorities, statutes, and the
Appendix or parts of the Record on appeal relied on ….” Partow’s brief
essentially consists of a list of bald assertions, unsupported by cogent reasoning,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1410-SC-730 | October 27, 2015 Page 3 of 4
without a single citation to legal authority, the appendix, or any part of the
record on appeal. It is not our burden to search the record, research relevant
authorities, and brief his case for him. If we were to address his arguments as
he has presented them, “we would be forced to abdicate our role as an impartial
tribunal and would instead become an advocate for one of the parties. This,
clearly, we cannot do.” Shepherd, 819 N.E.2d at 463. Partow has waived our
review of his contentions for lack of cogent argument. See id.
[6] Waiver notwithstanding, we are able to discern that the crux of Partow’s
argument is simply a request for us to reweigh the evidence in his favor, a task
not within our prerogative on appeal. See Hutchison, 2 N.E.3d at 805. The
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
[7] Affirmed.
May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1410-SC-730 | October 27, 2015 Page 4 of 4