Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A01-1708-SC-1925 | June 19, 2018 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Todd Cooper

Louisville, Kentucky

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Todd Cooper,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Mark VanGilder, Leah 

Donohue, William Donohue, 

and Mary VanGilder,

Appellees-Plaintiffs

June 19, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

10A01-1708-SC-1925

Appeal from the Clark Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Maria Granger, 

Special Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

10C03-1603-SC-325

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] In this pro se appeal, we are asked to review a protracted small claims action 

that began as a simple eviction action and has now spanned six different trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A01-1708-SC-1925 | June 19, 2018 Page 2 of 7

judges and one interlocutory appeal. Landlords Mark VanGilder, Leah 

Donohue, William Donohue, and Mary VanGilder (collectively “VanGilder”)

filed a small claims complaint against tenant Todd Cooper for eviction due to 

nonpayment of rent. Cooper filed a motion to dismiss, a motion for recusal, 

and a request for jury trial, all of which the trial court denied. The court issued 

a judgment in favor of VanGilder for unpaid rent and a portion of VanGilder’s

attorney’s fees. Cooper now appeals, challenging the trial court’s denial of his 

motions and claiming that he was denied due process in the trial court’s denial 

of his request for jury trial. Finding that Cooper has failed to provide us with a 

complete record upon which we can fully review his claims and that his 

arguments lack cogency, we affirm.

Fact and Procedural History

[2] As best we can discern from the record before us, the facts are as follows. In 

2015, Cooper leased a house (“the Property”) from VanGilder at a monthly rate 

of $750. Just after Christmas, a leaky roof resulted in water damage to part of 

the Property. VanGilder assessed the situation and placed a tarp over the roof. 

The first week of January, VanGilder hired a water damage restoration

company to repair the Property. A mold specialist examined the Property and 

found that the levels of mold were low enough for Cooper and his family to live 

there. Meanwhile, Cooper sought another opinion regarding the presence of 

mold because his grandchild, who lived on the Property with Cooper and his 

two daughters, had become ill with a respiratory infection and required 

treatment at a hospital. Cooper continued to express his concerns about mold, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A01-1708-SC-1925 | June 19, 2018 Page 3 of 7

and VanGilder sent the mold specialist back to the Property with a chemical 

spray to kill the existing mold and prevent new mold from growing. 

[3] Cooper did not pay his rent for February 2016. On February 17, 2016, 

VanGilder sent Cooper a letter offering to forgo the February and March 2016 

rent payments if Cooper would vacate the Property by March 31, 2016. Cooper 

sent a letter in response saying that he found VanGilder’s terms unfair. He 

essentially counteroffered to not pay rent for February and March and stated 

that he expected VanGilder to make certain additional repairs. Cooper did not 

pay March’s rent payment and did not vacate on March 31. Shortly thereafter, 

VanGilder filed an eviction action in small claims court due to Cooper’s 

nonpayment of rent. The action below eventually involved six different trial 

judges and one interlocutory appeal. 

[4] Meanwhile, Cooper and his family continued to live on the Property off and on 

without paying rent until the lease term expired. He testified that the family 

alternated between the Property and a house in Louisville “because there is not 

enough room in [the Louisville house.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 73. 

[5] At some point in the proceedings below, Cooper requested a jury trial and filed 

a motion to dismiss for insufficient notice. He also filed a motion for recusal, 

claiming that the trial court, a special judge assigned to the case, was biased 

because she had previously worked as a prosecutor in the courthouse where 

Mark VanGilder and Leah Donohue worked. At a June 2017 hearing/bench 

trial, he told the trial court that he had filed a complaint against her with the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A01-1708-SC-1925 | June 19, 2018 Page 4 of 7

Judicial Qualifications Commission based on what he believed to be ex parte 

communication with VanGilder concerning the cancellation of one of the 

hearings in his case. The trial court denied Cooper’s motion for recusal. The 

court also denied Cooper’s motion for jury trial, finding that it had been 

untimely filed. 

[6] On June 19, 2017, the trial court issued an order finding the eviction claim and 

notice to Cooper sufficient and denying Cooper’s motion to dismiss. The court 

awarded VanGilder $750 in unpaid rent and $1000 in attorney’s fees. Cooper 

now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] Cooper contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for recusal

and dismissal as well as his request for a jury trial. At the outset, we note that 

this appeal comes from small claims court, where the trial is to “be informal, 

with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties 

according to the rules of substantive law.” Ind. Small Claims Rule 8(A). The 

present small claims action has involved six changes of judge and one

interlocutory appeal, and the underlying lease has expired. As such, the speedy 

justice objective has not been accomplished.

[8] As another preliminary matter, we observe that VanGilder has not filed an 

appellee’s brief. Where an appellee fails to file a brief, we do not undertake to 

develop arguments on his behalf; rather, we may reverse upon a prima facie 

showing of reversible error. Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196, 1199 (Ind. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A01-1708-SC-1925 | June 19, 2018 Page 5 of 7

2008). Prima facie error is error “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the 

face [of] it.” Id. As the appellant, Cooper nevertheless bears the burden of 

demonstrating that he is entitled to relief, and if he does not meet this burden, 

we will affirm. R.J.S. v. Stockton, 886 N.E.2d 611, 613 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[9] We also note that Cooper chose to proceed pro se both below and on appeal. It 

is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as 

licensed attorneys. Twin Lakes Reg’l Sewer Dist. v. Teumer, 992 N.E.2d 744, 747 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013). This includes those such as Cooper who prosecute their 

appeals pro se and therefore must comply with all the rules of appellate 

procedure. Srivastava v. Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, Inc., 779 N.E.2d 52, 61 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied (2003). While we prefer to decide issues on 

the merits, where the appellant’s noncompliance with appellate rules is so 

substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the 

alleged errors waived. Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied (2015), cert. denied. 

[10] Cooper has failed to comply with several procedural rules. For example, his 

brief is deficient in many respects. The statement of facts includes argument 

and conclusions, in violation of Appellate Rule 46(A)(6), which requires a 

narrative description of the relevant facts stated in accordance with the 

appropriate standard of review. See New v. Pers. Representative of Estate of New, 

938 N.E.2d 758, 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appellant’s statement of facts shall 

neither omit relevant facts nor contain subjective argument), trans. denied

(2011). Similarly, Cooper’s statement of the case does not lay out the relevant 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A01-1708-SC-1925 | June 19, 2018 Page 6 of 7

procedural posture of the case as required by Appellate Rule 46(A)(5), but 

instead includes allegations and argument. With respect to the argument 

section, we first note that Cooper has failed to include citations to support his 

statement of the appropriate standard of review, as required by Appellate Rule 

46(A)(8)(b). Additionally, his arguments lack cogency. As the party with the 

burden of establishing error on appeal, he must cite pertinent authority and 

develop reasoned arguments supporting his allegations. Ind. Appellate Rule 

46(A)(8). He cites only two cases within his argument section and fails to use 

them to develop coherent arguments in support of his positions. Instead, he 

relies on documents not included in the record on appeal, i.e., VanGilder’s 

complaint (with the lease attached), the CCS, the negotiation offer from 

VanGilder, and Cooper’s letter/counteroffer in response. 

[11] Moreover, Cooper has failed to submit the exhibits admitted at trial as required 

by Indiana Appellate Rule 29(A). Exhibits are especially important where, as 

here, we are asked to review a lease agreement and documents related to the 

parties’ subsequent correspondence and negotiations. Where Cooper cites the 

documents in his brief, he merely cites to the transcript pages that include 

references to portions of them. We do not have the complete documents, and 

we cannot review them piecemeal. Cooper has also failed to submit an 

appendix, as required by Appellate Rules 49(A) and 50(A)(1). This leaves us 

without access to the chronological case summary (“CCS”), other than two 

isolated pages that Cooper included in his notice of appeal. From what we can 

glean, the CCS was twenty-two pages long. Without it, we have no way of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A01-1708-SC-1925 | June 19, 2018 Page 7 of 7

reviewing whether Cooper failed to meet the deadline for requesting a jury trial, 

as indicated by the trial court, or whether VanGilder failed to give him 

adequate notice to pay or quit. Finally, we have no access to his motions to 

recuse, to dismiss, or for jury trial, the denial of which we are now asked to 

review. In short, the absence of the CCS, motions, and exhibits makes review 

of Cooper’s appeal impossible.1 

[12] In sum, Cooper has failed to submit a sufficient record for us to conduct a 

meaningful review of his case. We cannot review his case in a vacuum, and as 

he is the party with the burden of establishing error on appeal, we must affirm.

[13] Affirmed. 

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.

 

1

 Appellate Rule 49(B) states, “Any party’s failure to include any item in an Appendix shall not waive any 

issue or argument.” (Emphasis added.) Notwithstanding, we note that this case involves a wholesale failure 

to file an appendix, not merely the omission of an item.