ILNews

Opinions Sept. 19, 2013

September 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions – Sept. 19, 2013

Indiana Court of Appeals

Beneficial Financial 1 Inc., Successor in Interest to Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Indiana v. Sharon Hatton, a/k/a Sharon J. Hatton, First Select, Inc., Calvary SPV, II, LLC, and Discover Bank
45A03-1212-MF-531
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses trial court grant of dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, finding that a surviving company after a merger needs no documentation of assignment of interest in Hatton’s mortgage, and remands to the trial court with instructions to reinstate Beneficial’s complaint for damages. Beneficial also must have an opportunity to prove that a mutual mistake was the cause of an erroneous legal description of the property secured by the mortgage.

In Re: the Paternity of: N.C.G., B.G., v. N.G.

02A04-1301-JP-21
Juvenile Paternity. Reverses denial of B.G.’s (father’s) petition to give his child, N.C.G., his surname. Finds caselaw encourages a paternal connection between a father and his nonmarital and noncustodial child especially when, as in this case, the father pays child support and participates in the minor’s life. Holds giving the child the father’s surname is in the best interest of the child.

Justin D. Maurer v. Crystal Cobb-Maurer
02A03-1304-PO-129
Protective order. Reverses grant of a protective order for Crystal Cobb-Maurer against Justin D. Maurer, holding that there was not evidence of sufficient probative value presented at the hearing to support a finding that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, intimidated or threatened.

Lily, Inc. d/b/a Weinbach Cafeteria and Fernando Tudela v. Silco, LLC.

82A05-1209-PL-459
Civil Plenary. Affirms in part the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Silco. Also reverses and remands for consideration of issues related to attorney fees, mitigation of damages and accounting. Judge Patricia Riley dissents, in part, finding no material issues of fact remaining based on the designated evidence as to attorneys fees and mitigation of damages.

Richard Reese v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-215
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Ronald Pearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1211-CR-610
Criminal. Affirms 39-year sentence for multiple drug-related convictions.

James R. Dieterle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A05-1304-CR-191
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence, a 50-year term imposed for conviction of Class A felony arson, Class B felony burglary and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Ivan Luis Vazquez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1207-PC-545
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief from a 45-year executed sentence for conviction of Class A felony charges of dealing in cocaine and conspiracy to deal in cocaine.

J.D.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1303-JV-109
Juvenile. Affirms delinquency adjudication for committing an act that would be Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult.

In Re The Adoption of K.T.; J.T. v. A.A.B. (NFP)
69A01-1304-AD-184
Adoption. Affirms trial court odrder granting the adoption petition of A.A.B. and terminating father J.T.’s parental rights.

Miles Toran v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1302-CR-154
Criminal. Affirms 65-year sentence for convictions of murder and attempted murder.

Curtis F. Sample, Jr., v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1302-CR-52
Criminal. Affirms trial court finding of habitual offender on remand from the Indiana Supreme Court.

Gregory Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.





 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT