ILNews

Opinions July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Cincinnati Life Insurance Company v. Marjorie Beyrer
12-2365
Civil plenary. Affirms District Court rulings against Marjorie Beyrer, widow of Kevin Beyrer, in a life insurance dispute. The court found no merit on the issues she appealed after she failed to be awarded proceeds from her husband’s life insurance policy that was assigned to a third party. Dismissal of some claims for failing to comply with federal pleading standards and summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati Life on other claims was not an abuse of discretion, the court ruled.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jason J. Klinker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A05-1301-CR-26
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence of three years for Class D felony escape.

In Re: Paternity of B.B.; M.B. v. Y.M.M. (NFP)
71A04-1208-JP-447
Juvenile Paternity. Affirms juvenile court’s finding that M.B., the father, was in contempt for failing to pay certain childcare expenses and that, Y.M.M., the mother, was not in contempt of any court order regarding visitation.

Tharl Pinkston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A02-1210-CR-829
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Pinkston’s probation.

Jeffrey Bowles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1208-CR-654
Criminal. Affirms Bowles’ conviction for Class D felony domestic battery.

Edwin Valladares v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1211-CR-568
Criminal. Affirms Valladares’ convictions following a bench trial for five counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class B misdemeanor voyeurism.

Daniel Paul Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)

53A01-1209-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentencing of Foster to an aggregated 26 years executed in the Department of Correction: 20 years for Class B felony aggravated battery, three years each for the two counts of Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a penal facility employee (to be served consecutively to each other and to the 20 year sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery), and one year for Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief (to be served concurrently to the other sentences).

In Re The Guardianship of Carlton H. Word; Timothy W. Word and Tracy L. Wise v. Rance Buehrer, Guardian of Carlton H. Word (NFP)
76A03-1209-GU-395
Guardianship. Affirms trial court’s judgment that under the terms of the June 4, 1998, second amendment to Carlton’s trust, the Zimmerman Farm must be distributed as part of the trust residuary, rather than as a specific bequest under the trust or pursuant to an undelivered, unrecorded deed.

Christopher Long v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1211-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Long’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Terrence Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1210-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms Boyd’s conviction, after a bench trial, for battery as a Class B misdemeanor.

Benjamen Benjamen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1210-CR-524
Criminal. Affirms Benjamen’s conviction for resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT