In Re: The Matter of the Supervised Estate of Mildred Borgwald, Deceased v. Old National Bank and Raelynn Pound - 2/27/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  February 27, 2014 
3:00 PM  EST

3 p.m. 84A01-1302-ES-80. Wabash College. This appeal involves the review of an order and judgment of foreclosure of an equity line of credit and mortgage against the Supervised Estate of Mildred Borgwald.  The Appellant, the Supervised Estate of Mildred Borgwald (Estate), presents this court with several evidentiary issues pertaining to the competency of ninety-five year old Mildred Borgwald to execute an equity line of credit.  Specifically, the Estate asserts the following errors:

-          Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded the testimony of the Estate’s proffered expert witness, a gyneacologist who had never treated Mildred;

-          Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted redacted certified copies of medical records containing the observations of nurses and physicians regarding Mildred’s mental and physical status;

-          Whether the trial court improperly denied the Estate an opportunity to make an offer of proof; and

-          Whether Old National’s Mortgage was invalidated by failure of the closing agent to read the loan documents to Mildred in violation of Indiana Code section 33-42-2-2(4).
 

Back to Events
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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT