Opinions May 29, 2013

May 29, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jill Finfrock a/k/a Jill Bastone v. Mark Finfrock
Domestic relation. Reverses award of attorney fees to Mark Finfrock. The award was based on perceived violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which is inapplicable because Finfrock’s arrearage of child support is not considered “debt” under the Act. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining Jill Bastone’s request to enter a qualified domestic relations order to attach to the entirety of her ex-husband’s retirement account. Remands for further proceedings.

Glenn Patrick Bradford v. State of Indiana

Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Bradford’s evidence that he claimed was newly discovered did not require a new trial. The court did not err in denying his claims of ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel.

Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society, Inc. v. Elizabeth Bridgewater o/b/o Alyssa Bridgewater
Agency action. Affirms administrative law judge’s finding that Alyssa Bridgewater, who has dietary restrictions, was reasonably accommodated by FACES when it suggested she bring a meal to an event; and that there is sufficient evidence to support the finding that FACES engaged in unlawful retaliation by expelling the Bridgewaters. Affirms the $2,500 granted to the Bridgewaters by the Indiana Civil Rights Commission for the retaliatory expulsion from the religious homeschooling organization. Reverses order that FACES post the ALJ’s decision on all websites on which they have communicated information regarding this case. Judge Bailey concurs in result.

Jesse Brown v. State of Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of DCS’ motion to dismiss Brown’s petition for judicial review and order that directed the agency to reimburse Brown $1,200 for the cost of preparing an agency record.

In the Matter of S.D.; J.B. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms determination S.D. is a child in need of services and the disposition ordered by the court.

B.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication that B.B. committed what would be Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult.

Philip R. Davis v. City of Fort Wayne (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Davis’ complaints for judicial review.

Leonard F. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Reverses the post-conviction court’s judgment against Williams on his claim that his guilty plea was involuntary and remands for the post-conviction court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Affirms the post-conviction denial of Williams’ petition on his claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues