ILNews

Monroe County man’s suit against ex-wife and city still alive in trial court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded Thursday that portions of a man’s lawsuit alleging false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and other claims against his ex-wife and the city of Bloomington may continue. The trial court had dismissed all claims against the parties, which includes Monroe County.

Cody Waldrip filed his tort claims notice Dec. 14, 2009, after he was released from jail when the prosecutor dismissed remaining charges against him. He was originally arrested in April 2008 after Angela Waldrip told police her then-husband had battered her. She later filed for a protective order and alleged Cody Waldrip violated that, so he was arrested and charged with misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

A jury acquitted Cody Waldrip in September 2009, although the record isn’t clear what he was on trial for or what charges the prosecutor later dismissed.

Cody Waldrip claimed that his ex-wife made false criminal accusations in order to gain an advantage regarding custody of their children and that she abused her position as an employee of Monroe Circuit Court in obtaining the protective order. Angela Waldrip was a court reporter.

His suit made similar allegations against the three defendants – his ex-wife, Bloomington and Monroe County – including defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted motions to dismiss filed by the county and Angela Waldrip, and Bloomington’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In Cody Waldrip v. Angela Waldrip, City of Bloomington, Indiana, Monroe County, Indiana, State of Indiana, 53A01-1203-CT-135, the appellate court rejected the county’s argument that the appeal should be dismissed as untimely. It affirmed dismissal of claims against the county because Cody Waldrip’s complaint didn’t state any claims that could be properly presented against Monroe County. The Circuit court is funded by the state.

The judges found Cody Waldrip’s tort claim notice was timely as to his claims of malicious prosecution and that more information is needed to show whether he was incapacitated as defined by statute and therefore unable to timely file his claims against the city for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process and defamation.  

The claims of false imprisonment, civil perjury, tortious interference with child custody and/or parenting time, defamation and abuse of process claims against Angela Waldrip were properly dismissed, the court held, but the claims of malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress against her may continue.

 

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