MEMORANDUM DECISION
Statement of the Case
[1] Roderick Garrison sued Jasmine Vernon in small claims court, seeking to recover money and certain items he had given her. After a trial, the small claims court found that the money and items were gifts and entered judgment in favor of Vernon. Garrison now appeals and presents two issues for our review, which we revise and restate as the following single issue: Whether the small claims court clearly erred by finding the money and items Garrison gave to Vernon were gifts.
[2] Because we conclude that Garrison has procedurally waived his claim, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On August 25, 2023, Garrison filed a pro se notice of claim in small claims court, alleging that he had loaned Vernon money and she owed him $2,450.
1
On October 23, 2023, the small claims court held a bench trial at which both parties appeared.
2
The next day, the small claims court entered judgment in favor of Vernon, finding that the money and items Garrison gave to Vernon during their relationship were gifts. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Garrison raises several issues on appeal regarding whether the small claims court clearly erred in finding that the money and items he gave to Vernon were gifts. However, we cannot address those claims due to Garrisons significant noncompliance with Indiana Appellate Rule 46. Although we have a well-established preference for deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural grounds like waiver, Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Roberts v. Cmty. Hosps. of Ind., Inc., 897 N.E.2d 458, 469 (Ind. 2008)), if a partys failure to comply with the Appellate Rules is “sufficiently substantial to impede our consideration of the issue raised,” we will not address the merits of that issue, id. (quoting Guardiola v. State, 375 N.E.2d 1105, 1107 (Ind. 1978)).
[5] The purpose of our appellate rules—especially Appellate Rule 46 governing the content of briefs—“is to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case.” Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023) (emphasis added) (quoting Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)). For instance, a party must provide the applicable standard of review. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b). A partys analysis of an issue on appeal must be supported in relevant part by cogent reasoning and by citations to authorities and statutes upon which the party relies. Id. 46(A)(8)(a). “We will not step in the shoes of the advocate and fashion arguments on his behalf, ‘nor will we address arguments’ that are ‘too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood.’ ” Miller, 212 N.E.3d at 657 (quoting Dridi, 172 N.E.3d at 364).
[6] Garrison fails to provide citations for all statements of fact in his brief, Appellants Br. at 4–7, which violates Appellate Rules 46(A)(5), 46(A)(6)(a), and 46(A)(8)(a). Garrison also fails to provide the applicable standard of review, see id. at 5–7, which violates Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b). Additionally, Garrison fails to provide citations for many statements of law, see id., which violates Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). For the statements of law that Garrison does provide a citation for, he does not cite to any Indiana statutes or authorities. See id. at 6 n.1–n.4 (citing In re De Gheests Est., 243 S.W.2d 83, 90 (Mo. 1951); Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. 1976); C.I.R. v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 285 (1960)). Thus, Garrison has waived appellate review of his claims.
[7] Due to Garrisons failures, he has substantially impeded our review of his claims. As such, we affirm the small claims court on all issues raised.
[8] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Garrison does not include in his appendix any of the filings in this case, the small claims courts orders, and the Chronological Case Summary, all of which is required to be included in the appendix pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 50(A). We also observe that Garrison failed to designate and attach the appealed order or judgment in his Notice of Appeal, which violates Appellate Rules 9(F)(3) and 9(F)(8)(a). To the extent necessary, we have taken judicial notice of the record pursuant to Appellate Rule 27.
2
. Garrison did not request the transcript of the bench trial—as is required by Appellate Rule 9(F)(5) when the appellant argues that a finding of fact is unsupported by or is contrary to the evidence—so no transcript of the proceedings was provided on appeal.
Felix, Judge.
Riley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.