Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 65(E), the trial court and parties shall not take any action in
reliance upon this Opinion until it is certified.
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Joy Rugenstein, FILED
Appellant-Respondent Oct 20 2026, 9:04 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
v. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Tyson Rugenstein,
Appellee-Petitioner
October 20, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
25A-DC-2926
Appeal from the Morgan Circuit Court
The Honorable Matthew G. Hanson, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
55C01-2309-DC-1626
Opinion by Judge May
Judges Pyle and Scheele concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 25A-DC-2926 October 20, 2026 Page 1 of 8
May, Judge.
[1] Joy Rugenstein (“Mother”) appeals following the dissolution of her marriage to
Tyson Rugenstein (“Father”). She contends the trial court violated her right to
due process when it issued its provisional order. Because Mother was not
denied due process, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Mother and Father are the parents of Child. On September 14, 2023, Father
filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and a motion for a provisional order.
The trial court heard evidence over multiple days related to the motion for a
provisional order. Mother appeared at hearings on November 28, 2023, and
December 20, 2023. Following the December hearing, the trial court set the
matter for another evidentiary hearing on January 19, 2024. On January 19,
2024, the trial court met in-chambers with the parties’ attorneys, but it did not
hear any additional evidence related to the motion for a provisional order.
Later that day, the trial court issued a provisional order granting Father custody
of Child and ordering that Mother should have visitation with Child in
accordance with a counselor’s recommendation. The order also required
Mother to vacate the marital residence by January 31, 2024.
[3] The dissolution action then continued before the trial court for approximately
twenty-two months. The trial court held the final hearings over four days in
2025: September 15, September 16, October 6, and November 7. On November
13, 2025, the trial court issued a final decree of dissolution. The trial court
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 25A-DC-2926 October 20, 2026 Page 2 of 8
awarded Father full physical and legal custody of Child. The trial court also
ordered that Mother be allowed supervised visits with Child for six hours every
Sunday. Mother then filed this appeal.
[4] After we obtained jurisdiction over Mother’s appeal, she filed a motion
pursuant to Appellate Rule 31 asking us to remand the case back to the trial
court so that she could file a statement of evidence related to the January 19,
2024 attorney conference because that proceeding was not recorded. We
granted the motion and remanded the case back to the trial court. On March 4,
2026, Mother filed her verified statement of evidence with the trial court. In
that statement, Mother asserted that she was available to testify on January 19,
2024, but she was not called to testify. On March 9, 2026, the trial court issued
an order related to Mother’s verified statement of evidence. In that order, the
trial court found:
4) That on January 19, 2024 the matter was set for a provisional
hearing.
5) That on January 19, 2024 the attorneys and court met in
chambers and no hearing was conducted.
6) That the court is unable to certify anything as requested by the
Appellant as there was no court hearing, no transcript, no
presentation of evidence and no decision made by the court from
any hearing on January 19, 2024.
(Amended Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 25A-DC-2926 October 20, 2026 Page 3 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[5] We note at the outset that Mother proceeds pro se. We hold pro se litigants to
the same standard as trained attorneys and afford them no inherent leniency
because of their self-represented status. Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266
(Ind. 2014). Pro se litigants must “follow the established rules of procedure and
must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Basic v.
Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “One of the risks that a
[litigant] takes when he decides to proceed pro se is that he will not know how
to accomplish all of the things that an attorney would know how to
accomplish.” Smith v. Donahue, 907 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009),
trans. denied. We will not become an “advocate for a party, or address
arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be
understood.” Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014), trans. denied.
[6] In addition, Father elected not to file an appellee’s brief. “When the appellee
fails to file a brief on appeal, we may reverse the trial court’s decision if the
appellant makes a prima facie showing of reversible error. In this context,
prima facie error is defined as at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of
it.” Walking with Jesus Ministries v. Alexander, 240 N.E.3d 183, 185 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2024) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Still, we are
obligated to correctly apply the law to the facts in the record in order to
determine whether reversal is required.” Jenkins v. Jenkins, 17 N.E.3d 350, 352
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 25A-DC-2926 October 20, 2026 Page 4 of 8 [7] Mother contends that the trial court violated her constitutional right to due
process when it conducted the January 19, 2024, proceeding in chambers and
did not record it so that a transcript could be prepared.1 She requests that we
“vacate all orders entered or enforced on or after January 19, 2024, and remand
for immediate remedial proceedings consistent with due process.” (Appellant’s
Br. at 11.)
[8] We review constitutional claims de novo. 624 Broadway, LLC v. Gary Hous.
Auth., 193 N.E.3d 381, 384 (Ind. 2022). The Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution provides that no State shall “deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” “[T]he fundamental
requirement of procedural due process is the opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Perdue v. Gargano, 964 N.E.2d
825, 832 (Ind. 2012). Here, the trial court held two evidentiary hearings before
entering the provisional order, and Mother attended both hearings.2
[9] Mother emphasizes that a transcript of the January 19, 2024, attorney
conference is not available because the conference was not recorded. However,
1
Mother’s notice of appeal identified several additional issues for appeal, but Mother failed to present cogent
argument regarding any of those issues in her brief. See Ind. App. R. 46(A)(8)(a) (“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[.]”). Therefore, those issues are waived. See, e.g., Martin v. Hunt, 130 N.E.3d 135, 137-38
(Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (holding appellant waived all issues on appeal because of his failure to present cogent
argument).
2
Mother failed to provide a transcript of the two evidentiary hearings on the provisional order, so we are
unaware of what evidence was presented at those hearings.
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 25A-DC-2926 October 20, 2026 Page 5 of 8
Indiana Appellate Rule 31 outlines the procedure by which a party may
supplement the record if no transcript or evidence is available. Rule 31(A)
provides:
If no Transcript of all or part of the evidence is available, a party
or the party’s attorney may prepare a verified statement of the
evidence from the best available sources, which may include the
party’s or the attorney’s recollection. The party shall then file a
motion to certify the statement of evidence with the trial court or
Administrative Agency. The statement of evidence shall be
submitted with the motion.
After the opposing party is afforded the opportunity to respond to a party’s
verified statement of the evidence, the trial court “shall, after a hearing, if
necessary, certify a statement of the evidence, making any necessary
modifications to statements proposed by the parties.” Ind. App. R. 31(C). If
the trial court’s actions or conduct are in controversy, and the trial court refuses
to certify a party’s statement of the evidence, “the trial court judge . . . shall file
an affidavit setting forth his or her recollection of the disputed statements or
conduct.” Ind. App. R. 31(D).
[10] Mother availed herself of the procedure outlined in Rule 31. She filed a verified
statement of evidence noting that she was available to testify on January 19,
2024, and had discussed anticipated testimony with her attorney, but she was
not called to testify on that date. Mother’s verified statement did not make any
assertion regarding what was said between the trial court and counsel on that
date. She also did not include a verified statement from her attorney relaying
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 25A-DC-2926 October 20, 2026 Page 6 of 8 his recollection of what occurred during the unrecorded conference. The trial
court then submitted an affidavit regarding Mother’s verified statement of
evidence in which it explained that it did not hold an evidentiary hearing on
that date. The only thing that occurred was an attorney conference. Rule 31
afforded Mother an adequate opportunity to supplement the record regarding
what occurred during the conference, and thus, her right to procedural due
process was not violated. See, e.g., Ruetz v. State, 373 N.E.2d 152, 155 (Ind.
1978) (holding requirement that defendant submit a statement of evidence
because a transcript of his trial could not be prepared did not violate his right to
due process). Therefore, we affirm the trial court.3
3
We affirm, but we do not pass over the state of this record in silence. The January 19, 2024, proceeding – a scheduled provisional hearing following which the trial court entered a two-page provisional order concerning child custody, directing Mother to vacate the marital residence, and ordering the marital home listed for sale – was not recorded, and no transcript exists. “Courts of record should record all proceedings they conduct,” and where a proceeding is not recorded, should “secure a waiver of recording on the record to leave no doubt in the minds of all of those involved as to the status of the record.” Graddick v. Graddick, 779 N.E.2d 1209, 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002); Ind. T.R. 74(A) (Trial courts “shall arrange for the audio recording of all hearings and trials in all case types.”). Neither occurred here.
Indiana Appellate Rule 31(D) is reserved for the circumstance in which “the statements or conduct of the trial court judge . . . are in controversy” and the judge declines to certify the moving party’s statement. On remand, rather than certify a statement of what occurred with counsel in chambers, the trial court filed an affidavit averring that no hearing was conducted and no decision was made from any hearing on January 19, 2024. That averment is difficult to reconcile with the chronological case summary, which reflects that a hearing on the motion for a provisional order “commenced and concluded” on that date, (Notice of Filing Verified Statement of the Evidence at 25), and that the provisional order was entered that same day. We need not resolve that obvious tension between the record and the trial court’s averment, however, to conclude that Mother’s constitutional right to procedural due process was not violated because she was afforded the opportunity to supplement the record. Nevertheless, we note the tension to make clear that the trial court should have recorded the proceeding.
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 25A-DC-2926 October 20, 2026 Page 7 of 8
Conclusion
[11] Mother’s right to procedural due process was not violated. Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court.4
[12] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Scheele, J., concur.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Joy Rugenstein
Appellant, Pro Se
4
While Mother’s appeal remained under consideration, she filed several motions. We deny all pending
motions by separate order issued concurrently with this opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 25A-DC-2926 October 20, 2026 Page 8 of 8