Opinions Sept. 19, 2013

September 19, 2013
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
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.

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
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.

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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

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

James R. Dieterle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms 65-year sentence for convictions of murder and attempted murder.

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

Gregory Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.