Jay H. Wright v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. FILED Dec 22 2009, 10:48 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JAY H. WRIGHT Danville, Indiana GLENN S. VICIAN Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, P.C. Merrillville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA JAY H. WRIGHT, Appellant-Defendant, vs. HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A., Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 32A01-0902-CV-71 APPEAL FROM THE HENDRICKS CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Jeffrey V. Boles, Judge Cause No. 32C01-0801-CC-42 December 22, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION CRONE, Judge Case Summary Jay Wright, pro se, appeals the trial court s judgment in favor of HSBC Bank, Nevada, N.A. ( HSBC ). We affirm. Facts and Procedural History On January 24, 2008, HSBC filed a complaint against Wright for nonpayment of credit card debt in the amount of $2456.10 plus attorney fees and costs. Wright appeared pro se at the bench trial held on January 27, 2009. Prior to the commencement of the trial, Wright made a motion to recuse, which the trial court denied. Wright then exited the courtroom, advising the court he was leaving and going to go to the Supreme Court because his motion to recuse was denied. Tr. at 42. Thereafter, the court heard evidence and entered judgment in favor of HSBC. Discussion and Decision We note that Wright chose to proceed pro se both at the trial and appellate level. Wright not only made a poor decision of walking out during his bench trial, but he has also submitted an appellate brief that is totally devoid of cogent argument. He cites no cases as authority for any proposition, and his arguments are too poorly developed and confusing to be considered cogent for the purposes of appellate review. It is well settled that litigants who proceed pro se are held to the same standard as trained counsel and are required to follow procedural rules. Sumbry v. Boklund, 836 N.E.2d 430, 432 (Ind. 2005); Rickels v. Herr, 638 Wright s failure to provide us with cogent N.E.2d 1280, 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). 2 argument has resulted in the waiver of the issues he purports to raise on appeal.1 See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (requiring that contentions in appellant s brief be supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authorities, statutes, and the appendix or parts of the record on appeal). Therefore, we affirm the trial court s judgment. Affirmed. RILEY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur. 1 Notwithstanding his lack of cogent argument, we note that because Wright walked out of the bench trial, he raised none of his purported issues before the trial court and, therefore, has waived our review of those issues. Terry v. Ind. State Univ., 666 N.E.2d 87, 90 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
