ILNews

Opinions April 5, 2012

April 5, 2012
Keywords
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
28A04-1107-MF-404
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

54A01-1107-CT-302
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
20A01-1107-CR-339
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.
87A04-1107-PL-380
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
82A01-1109-SC-401
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
45A05-1107-CT-377
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
49A02-1109-CR-816
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)
20A03-1109-CR-422
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)
49A02-1106-PC-548
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)
30A04-1110-CR-528
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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT