MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 09 2019, 8:36 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Douglas Alan Dyson Elizabeth A. Deckard
Columbia City, Indiana Matthew R. Shipman
Bloom Gates Shipman &
Whiteleather LLP
Columbia City, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Douglas Alan Dyson, May 9, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-TS-2858
v. Appeal from the
Whitley Circuit Court
Whitley County Treasurer, The Honorable Matthew J.
Whitley County Auditor, Rentschler, Judge
Appellees-Plaintiffs Trial Court Cause No.
92C01-1810-TS-338
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
[1] Douglas Alan Dyson owned real property in Whitley County. On August 6,
2018, the Whitley County Auditor served Dyson with a notice of tax sale,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-TS-2858 | May 9, 2019 Page 1 of 3
stating that he had failed to pay more than $10,000 in property taxes and
penalties. Dyson filed a rambling, eleven-page objection to the tax sale, in
which he claimed that he was not required to pay the taxes in question.
Following a hearing, the trial court denied Dyson’s objection and ordered his
property to be sold. The trial court’s order provides, in part:
Mr. Dyson’s arguments that his property should not be subject to
taxes or tax sale are not cogent. The arguments consist of
fragments of legalese which are taken from their context and
weaponized without regard to logic, proper authority, or
common sense. His insistence that land patents, Trial Rule 11,
trusts, and subrogation have anything to do with this tax sale
stand in stark contrast to the simple fact that real property is
taxed in Indiana, and failing to pay those taxes will subject real
property to tax sale pursuant to the Indiana Code.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 106.
[2] Dyson, pro se, now appeals, raising several issues. The Whitley County
Auditor and Treasurer argue that Dyson has waived all of them by “failing to
make coherent, cogent arguments supported by relevant law and the record.”
Appellee’s Br. p. 9. We agree. Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) provides
that the appellant’s 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 . . . .”; see also Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25
N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (explaining that we will not become
“an advocate for a party, or address arguments that are inappropriate or too
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-TS-2858 | May 9, 2019 Page 2 of 3
poorly developed or expressed to be understood”), trans. denied. Dyson’s
arguments, however, are nonsensical, incomprehensible, and unsupported by
proper legal authority. The bulk of Dyson’s arguments concern his
unsupported claim that he appointed the trial-court judge in this case, Judge
Matthew J. Rentschler, as trustee of his property. See Appellant’s Br. p. 11
(“Trustee Rentschler intentionally breached his judicial office in bad faith by
failing to respect and honor the same as a public trust and strive to maintain
and enhance confidence in the legal system, regarding the DOUGLAS ALAN
DYSON estate, with reckless indifference and breach as referenced by naming
Payor: Doug Dyson Trust.”). Dyson then ends his argument by alleging that
“Trustee Rentschler’s” breach “is against House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5,
1933; Pub. L. 73-10 and Article XIII of the United States Constitution, slavery
and involuntary servitude perpetrated by a fraudulent and unjust monetary
pledging system.” Appellant’s Reply Br. p. 16. We agree with the trial court’s
apt assessment of Dyson’s arguments and therefore find that he has waived our
review of his contentions for lack of cogent argument.
[3] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-TS-2858 | May 9, 2019 Page 3 of 3