Mobile Home Management IN, LLC v. Avon Village, MHP, LLC - 8/14/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  August 14, 2014 
2:00 PM  EST

2 p.m. 32A04-1401-MI-6 . Mobile Home Management Indiana, LLC (“MHMI”) and Avon Village MHP, LLC (“Avon”) dispute the ownership of 17 mobile homes. Avon came into ownership of the real estate on which the mobile homes sit following a foreclosure action. Avon then purportedly came into ownership of the mobile homes through an auction conducted pursuant to Indiana’s Abandoned Mobile Homes statute. MHMI purportedly bought the mobile homes directly from their owner. Avon filed a declaratory judgment action to determine ownership of the mobile homes. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to Avon.  MHMI appeals, contending the trial court’s judgment is erroneous because the auction was invalid and that judgment should have been entered in its favor.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT