Opinion
No. 49A05–1204–PL–162.
2012-09-24
Thomas E. LYNCH, Appellant–Defendant, v. 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. Thomas E. Lynch, Indianapolis, IN, Appellant Pro Se. Lowell A. Shroyer, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court; The Honorable Theodore M. Sosin, Judge; The Honorable Burnett Caudill, Magistrate; Cause No. 49D02–1104–PL–15955.
Thomas E. Lynch, Indianapolis, IN, Appellant Pro Se. Lowell A. Shroyer, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
MEMORANDUM DECISION—NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.