Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1507-SC-1022 | February 10, 2016 Page 1 of 8

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

Robert Vega

Valparaiso, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Robert F. Tweedle

Highland, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert Vega,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Autumn Ridge Condominium 

Association Board of Directors,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 10, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

45A03-1507-SC-1022

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable Catheron A. Paras, 

Judge Pro Tempore

Trial Court Cause No.

45D07-1503-SC-228

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Robert Vega (“Vega”) filed a small claims action in Lake Superior Court 

against the Autumn Ridge Condominium Association (“ARCA”) Board of 

Directors (“the Board”) for reimbursement of a fireplace gas valve and alleged
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1507-SC-1022 | February 10, 2016 Page 2 of 8

misconduct by the Board. The small claims court entered judgment in favor of 

the Board. Vega appeals and raises two issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the small claims court erred when it determined that the gas 

valve was not a common use item and therefore not subject to 

reimbursement under ARCA’s Declaration of Condominium provisions 

and;

II. Whether the small claims court abused its discretion when it declined to 

hear Vega’s additional claims based on ARCA’s board member eligibility 

and general performance issues.

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Vega lived in a condominium at Autumn Ridge. He noticed a leak in his

fireplace gas line. In August 2013, Vega hired Salyer Plumbing, Inc. (“Salyer”) 

to make the necessary repairs, which included removal of interior drywall in 

order to gain access to the gas valve at issue.Vega requested reimbursement for 

the replaced gas valve from the Board under the Declaration of Condominium, 

but the Board refused. 

[4] The ARCA Declaration of Condominium provides in relevant part:

IV. Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Alteration of 

Apartments and Common and Limited Common Areas.

A. By the Apartment Owner.

1. Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement. It shall be 

the responsibility of the Apartment Owner to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1507-SC-1022 | February 10, 2016 Page 3 of 8

maintain, repair, and replace at the Apartment 

Owner’s expense all portions of the Apartment 

within the boundaries of the Apartment as described 

in Article V., excepting only those portions and items 

for which the responsibility for maintenance, repair 

and replacement is the specific responsibility of the 

Association under Article IV.B., and including all 

heating and air conditioning units, . . . 

***

B. By the Association. 

2. Maintenance, Repair and Replacement of Portions 

of the Condominium Located Within the Boundaries 

of Apartments. It shall be the responsibility of the 

Association to maintain, repair and replace within 

the boundaries of each Apartment as described in 

Article V. all portions of the Building structure, and 

all portions of the Apartment which contribute to the 

support of the Building and the Apartment 

boundaries, and which are otherwise in common use, 

including but not limited to, load bearing walls, all 

conduits, ducts, piping, plumbing, wiring, and other 

facilities for the furnishing of utilities, 

communications, television and security services, but 

excluding all appliances, plumbing fixtures, electrical 

and lighting fixtures, and heating and air 

conditioning units and circuit breaker panels; but 

shall also include all incidental damage caused to the 

Apartment by such work as may be done or caused to 

be done by the Association in accordance with this 

Article IV.B.

***
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1507-SC-1022 | February 10, 2016 Page 4 of 8

V. Description of Apartments.

B. Boundaries. Each apartment shall be bounded as to both 

horizontal and vertical boundaries as shown on the Plans 

attached as Exhibit “A”, subject to such encroachments as 

are contained in the Building whether the same exist now or 

are created by construction, settlement or movement of the 

Building, or permissible repairs, reconstruction, or 

alterations. Said boundaries are intended to be as follows:

1. Horizontal Boundaries:

a. the interior surface of drywall ceiling above and 

abutting the Apartment.

b. the interior top surfaces of the flooring below the 

finished floor covering and abutting the Apartment.

2. Vertical Boundaries:

a. the interior surfaces of the drywall of the 

boundary walls of each Apartment.

Appellant’s App. pp. 8-10.

[5] On March 26, 2015, Vega filed a small claims action against the Board in Lake 

Superior Court, requesting judgment for costs associated with the gas valve 

replacement. He also alleged that: 1) the board president was ineligible to serve, 

which would invalidate board actions; 2) willful misfeasance voided

indemnification for directors; 3) board actions had not protected the value of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1507-SC-1022 | February 10, 2016 Page 5 of 8

property nor provided for a congenial occupation; and 4) board actions had

been arbitrary and capricious. Appellant’s App. p. 5. 

[6] A bench trial was held on June 17, 2015. At trial, Vega presented evidence on 

the disputed repair invoice and then attempted to present evidence for his 

allegations of Board misconduct. The Board objected and asserted that Vega 

was attempting a derivative action and that he had no standing for such action. 

The small claims court sustained the Board’s objection and took the matter 

under advisement. On July 13, 2015, the court entered judgment in favor of the 

Board. Vega now appeals. 

I. Gas Valve Reimbursement

[7] Vega argues that the small claims court did not correctly apply the law to the 

facts when it determined that the gas line was within the apartment boundaries 

as provided in the Declaration of Condominium contract. Specifically, Vega 

argues that the Board should reimburse him for the cost of the gas valve 

replacement because the gas line was in the wall and outside of the vertical 

boundaries of the apartment. 

[8] The construction of the terms of a written contract is a pure question of law, 

which we review de novo. Fraternal Order of Police, Evansville Lodge, No. 73, Inc. v. 

City of Evansville, 940 N.E.2d 314, 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

When construing the meaning of a contract, our primary task is 

to determine and effectuate the intent of the parties. First, we 

must determine whether the language is ambiguous. The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1507-SC-1022 | February 10, 2016 Page 6 of 8

unambiguous language of a contract is conclusive upon the 

parties to the contract and upon the courts. If the language of the 

instrument is unambiguous, the parties’ intent will be determined 

from the four corners of the contract. If, on the other hand, a 

contract is ambiguous, its meaning must be determined by 

examining extrinsic evidence and its construction is a matter for 

the fact finder. When interpreting a written contract, we attempt 

to determine the intent of the parties at the time the contract was 

made. We will do this by examining the language used in the 

instrument to express their rights and duties. We read the 

contract as a whole and will attempt to construe the contractual 

language so as not to render any words, phrases, or terms 

ineffective or meaningless. We must accept an interpretation of 

the contract that harmonizes its provisions, rather than one that 

places the provisions in conflict.

Id. at 318-19 (quoting Whitaker v. Brunner, 814 N.E.2d 288, 293-94 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2004)).

[9] In the case before us, ARCA is required to:

maintain, repair, and replace within the boundaries of each 

Apartment as described in Article V. all portions of the Building 

structure, and all portions of the Apartment which contribute to 

the support of the Building and the Apartment boundaries, and 

which are otherwise in common use, including but not limited to, 

load bearing walls, all conduits, ducts, piping, plumbing, wiring, 

and other facilities for the furnishing of utilities, 

communications, television and security services, but excluding

all appliances, plumbing fixtures, electrical and lighting fixtures, 

and heating and air conditioning units and circuit breaker panels.

Appellant’s App. p. 10 (emphasis added). 

[10] Construing this provision in the context of the entire contract, we conclude that 

ARCA is responsible for maintenance, repair, and replacement of common use 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1507-SC-1022 | February 10, 2016 Page 7 of 8

items. Although the gas line was located in the wall, which was outside the 

defined apartment boundaries, this gas line only served Vega’s fireplace. As 

such, it is not for common use, but rather for individual use. By way of 

example, the provision listed other common use items that ARCA would 

maintain, repair, or replace. None of the items on the list benefit an individual 

apartment, but rather the members of ARCA as a whole. We therefore

conclude that the small claims court properly determined that ARCA was not 

required to reimburse Vega for the gas valve replacement cost. 

II. Vega’s Additional Claims Against the Board

[11] Vega also argues that the small claims court erred when it declined to hear his 

additional claims based on ARCA’s board member eligibility and general 

performance issues. However, no evidence in the record supports these claims 

on appeal. Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) provides in relevant part: 

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 authorities, statutes, 

and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on, in 

accordance with Rule 22.

[12] We will deem alleged errors waived where an appellant’s noncompliance with 

the rules of appellate procedure is so substantial that it impedes our appellate 

consideration of the errors. Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2004). It is well settled that we will not consider an appellant’s assertion 

on appeal when he has failed to present cogent argument supported by 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1507-SC-1022 | February 10, 2016 Page 8 of 8

authority and references to the record as required by the rules. Thacker v. 

Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). 

[13] In Vega’s claim filed with the small claims court, he cited to exhibits six 

through sixteen to support the additional claims. Appellant’s App. p. 5. Vega 

only provided exhibits in his appendix to support the gas valve replacement 

reimbursement claim against the Board and failed to request a trial transcript in 

his notice of appeal. See Appellant’s App. pp. 6-10. Although Vega cites to

some authority to support his argument on these additional claims, he did not 

rely on the record whatsoever. We recognize that Vega is a pro se litigant, but 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. Thacker, 797 N.E.2d at 345. Vega’s argument is not

supported by cogent reasoning, and therefore, it is waived and will not be 

considered by our court. 

Conclusion

[14] The small claims court properly determined that Vega was not entitled to 

reimbursement for the gas valve replacement cost from ARCA under the 

Declaration of Condominium. Further, Vega’s additional claims are not 

supported by cogent reasoning and will not be considered. 

[15] Affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.