ILNews

COA affirms court order in trailer ownership and use dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A court that granted relief from a previous order in a dispute over the ownership and use of 119 semi-trailers was affirmed Tuesday by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Celadon Trucking appealed a ruling from Hancock Circuit Judge Richard D. Culver in favor of United Equipment Leasing. United had purchased the trailers and leased them back to Teton Transportation Inc. in February 2012, and shortly thereafter, Teton sold nearly all its assets to Celadon. Teton is not a party in the case, and the trailers were not returned to United after it demanded.

United filed a complaint for replevin and sought damages for conversion and recovery of treble damages against Celadon, claiming unjust enrichment, among other things.

The trial court ruled on May 31, 2012, that United owned the trailers but had not proven other elements necessary for replevin: that trailers were unlawfully detained or that Celadon wrongfully possessed them. The court later granted United’s motion from relief from that order after it provided evidence that at least two trailers were on Celadon property and at least one was in use.

“The trial court’s grant of United’s motion for relief is sustainable under the trial court’s inherent power to reconsider, vacate, or modify any previous order so long as the case has not proceeded to final judgment,” Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote for the panel. “This is precisely what the trial court did in this case. The trial court was well within its discretion to grant United the requested relief.”

The case is Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a/k/a Celadon Trucking Services of Indiana v. United Equipment Leasing, LLC, 30A01-1311-CC-507.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT