Opinions April 5, 2012

April 5, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ronald Glenn Dyer
Mortgage Foreclosure. Reverses trial court’s order that GMAC Mortgage rewrite an agreement about an FHA-insured loan that Ronald Dyer defaulted on. Appellate court held that under federal law and HUD regulations, deeds in lieu of foreclosure release the borrower from any mortgage obligation and in this case the standard language GMAC used was sufficient.

Sharon Wright and Leslie Wright v. Anthony E. Miller, D.P.M. and Achilles Podiatry Group

Civil tort. Reverses medical malpractice ruling by trial court in striking expert witness testimony and dismissing a woman’s claim. Appellate court remands, finding that the trial court abused its discretion because the woman’s failure to comply with discovery orders and Indiana Trial Rule 41(E) did not rise to a sufficient level to deny her the chance to have her day in court.

Douglas W. Fancil v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms and reverses in part, finding insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Douglas Fancil manufactured three or more grams of meth. Affirms on other issues and remands with instructions to enter a conviction for a Class B felony dealing in meth and to issue a sentence accordingly.

William J. Harness and Bridget V. Harness v. Tabassum Parkar, Arshad Husain, John Mattingly Homes, Inc., and Lakeridge Crossing Homeowners Association, Inc.
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s denial of request for injunctive relief and final judgment entry in favor of Tabassum Parkar, Arshad Husain, John Mattingly Homes and Lakeridge Crossing Homeowners Association.

Amy and Steven Cerajewski v. Erin and Robert Kieffner
Small claims. Dismisses an interlocutory appeal of a Vanderburgh County small claims court’s denial of a couple’s motion to correct venue, in a case alleging breach of contract and fraud resulting from a real estate transaction in Posey County.

James Gagan, Fred Wittlinger, Jack Allen and Eugene Deutsch v. C. Joseph Yast
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of motion for summary judgment in favor of Yast, finding no evidence exists to support the plaintiffs’ claims that Yast abused his qualified common interest privilege, and holds that statements Yast made were not defamatory, but rather communicated that he was withdrawing as counsel due to conflict of interest.

Joshua Alford v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation, holding that Alford’s false review of his father’s cleaning company on Angie’s List violated a no-contact order, as Alford used an intermediary in an effort to harass his father.

Joshua J. Sharp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence in a jury trial of felony possession of a controlled substance found during a police search. Appellate court determined evidence shows defendant did not restrict his consent to search his vehicle, and so no Fourth Amendment or Indiana Constitution violation occurred.

Isaac Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post-conviction. Affirms trial court’s denial of a post-conviction relief petition, finding that Isaac Jones’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is barred by res judicata.

Debra A. Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court judgment excluding the testimony of an allegedly biased material witness, finding it does not constitute reversible error in the felony theft conviction case.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues