Michael A Wilson v. Lippert Components Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case. Dec 28 2023, 9:48 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Michael A. Wilson Elkhart, Indiana Robert J. Palmer May•Oberfell•Lorber Mishawaka, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Michael A. Wilson, December 28, 2023 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-SC-1788 v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court Lippert Components Inc., Appellee-Defendant. The Honorable Dean O. Burton, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 20D05-2301-SC-74 Memorandum Decision by Judge Bradford Judges Vaidik and Brown concur. Bradford, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-SC-1788| December 28, 2023 Page 1 of 3 Case Summary [1] Michael A. Wilson appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Lippert Components Inc. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] In a dispute, the dimensions of which are not entirely clear from the record on appeal but appears to involve claims of identity theft, tax fraud, and a reduction in Social Security disability benefits, Wilson sued Lippert on January 12, 2023. On July 14, 2023, following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Lippert, concluding that Wilson had failed to prove damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Discussion and Decision [3] Wilson seems to be arguing only that the trial court erred in failing to compel Lippert to comply with a subpoena duces tecum. Due to a lack of cogent argument, we are unable to review this argument on the merits. Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(A)(8)(a) requires an appellant to include an argument section which must contain the contentions on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning, to be supported by citations to authority and the record. Wilson’s argument wholly fails to comply with these requirements. Wilson does cite some authority but fails to explain how that authority supports his argument. Indeed, we are at something of a loss to understand exactly what Wilson’s argument is, as he does not explain how the trial court’s allegedly erroneous failure to compel Lippert to comply with a subpoena duces tecum Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-SC-1788| December 28, 2023 Page 2 of 3 relates to his claims of identity theft or how it prejudiced him. In short, Wilson’s claims on appeal are not supported by cogent argument and are therefore waived. See, e.g., Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 834, n.1 (Ind. 2006). [4] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Vaidik, J., and Brown, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-SC-1788| December 28, 2023 Page 3 of 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.
