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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT