ILNews

Opinions - Sept. 20, 2013

September 20, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions – Sept. 20, 2013

Indiana Court of Appeals


Walter E. Lunsford v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee
30A01-1302-MF-63
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank, holding that its mortgage was the senior lien on a property that Walter Lunsford sold on a land contract years earlier but failed to record until after the mortgage was recorded. Deutsche Bank is the holder of the note and was entitled to enforce the loan document after a default, and Lunsford waived his arguments that the bank lacks standing and that it refused his offer to make payment in full because those arguments were not raised before the trial court.

Linda M. Neese v. State of Indiana
41A01-1303-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor check deception. Finds the state presented sufficient evidence. Also rules Neese failed to meet the burden of proving her affirmative defense. She told her friend she had insufficient funds in her bank account to cover the check when, in fact, her account at the bank had been closed. Consequently, she failed to show she did not mislead, deceive or defraud.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of F.L. and B.L., Minor Children, and their Mother, B.L. and their Father D.L., B.L. and D.L. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
28A01-1303-JT-126
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

William Temple v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1211-MI-533
Criminal. On rehearing, clarifies that the trial court may address Temple’s petition for habeas corpus and treat it as a post-conviction petition, and there is no need to transfer to a different trial court. Affirms its prior opinion in all other respects.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions before IL deadline Friday. U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Friday.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT