ILNews

Judges affirm division of property

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although a commissioners’ report that divided land among two owners was technically inadequate, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the division because one of the owners didn’t show he was prejudiced.

In George W. Giltner, Jr. v. Betty L. Ivers, Martin Zacharias, Jr., and Bradi L. Zacharias, No. 10A05-1010-PL-662, Betty Ivers owned 80 percent of a 100-acre parcel of land that was partly wooded and partly farm land, and George Giltner owed the other 20 percent. Brandi and Martin Zacharias, who were buying Ivers’ portion to build a home in the wooded area, tried to negotiate with Giltner to buy his share, but he refused. The Zachariases filed a complaint to compel partition of the land and three commissioners were appointed.

Both parties were interested in the wooded portion, but did not mention that to the commissioners. The commissioners apportioned Giltner 16.5 acres on the farmland side, and the rest of the land to the Zachariases. Giltner filed a motion to set aside the report, claiming the report wasn’t in proper form and was unreasonable in the division of the land. The trial court heard testimony from Giltner about how he often visited the wooded area with his family while growing up and it held special memories for him; Brandi also testified that she had childhood memories of spending time in the woods and that her relatives, who lived nearby, only recalled seeing Giltner on the property twice.

The trial court issued an order confirming the report and denied Giltner’s motion to correct error.

The Court of Appeals rejected the Zachariases’ arguments as to why Giltner waived each issue he raised on appeal. Giltner argued that the report should be set aside because it didn’t make any finding as to whether the division would materially damage a party, it didn’t reveal the property’s value or methodology used, and the division wasn’t proportionate to the parties’ ownership interests.

The report issued was sparse in information and didn’t find whether dividing the land would cause material damage to a party, as the commissioners were instructed to do. However, that the commissioners recommended a division at all indicates that they believed the land could be fairly divided, wrote Judge Terry Crone. The report is technically inadequate because it didn’t include information and reasoning supporting their suggested apportion, which helps the trial court make a reasoned decision to confirm or deny and helps parties decide whether to challenge the report, he wrote.

The commissioners were also told to maintain a file of all information supporting the report, and this information was discoverable to the parties. There’s no indication in the record that Giltner tried to access this information.

Giltner hasn’t showed that he was prejudiced, so he is not entitled to reversal, the appellate court ruled.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT