ILNews

Opinions Aug. 22, 2013

August 22, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Roger A. Buchanan and Susan Buchanan v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.
39A01-1211-MF-515
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of HSBC Mortgage Services, holding that even if a mortgage was not properly acknowledged, the Buchanans don’t deny that they executed a mortgage and note when they purchased their home, on which they stopped making mortgage payments in 2007. The Buchanans’ arguments therefore are without merit.

Dianne M. Ross, William L. Ross, Martha Jane Milhouse and Paul David Milhouse v. Bartholomew County Drainage Board and Stephen A. Hoevener, Jim Pence, Ron Speaker, Jeff Schroer, and Carl Lienhoop
03A01-1210-PL-489
Civil plenary. Affirms ruling that a berm constructed by the Rosses and the Milhouses did impede the draining of a natural surface watercourse and should be removed. Also affirms the reduction of attorney fees related to a violation of Indiana’s Open Door Law, finding the petitioners included reimbursements for work done outside the Open Door Law claim.

Alexander David Toradze v. Susan Blake Toradze
71A05-1212-DR-623
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s denial of Alexander Toradze’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Father is contesting his ex-wife’s petition to a modify child support order to include college expenses. Finds the court does have jurisdiction because recent amendments to the termination of child support and emancipation statute entitle Susan Toradze to file a petition. In a concurring opinion, Judge Elaine Brown concludes the trial court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction.    

Jeremiah Walls v. State of Indiana
55A05-1211-CR-603
Criminal. Affirms conviction and three-year sentence on two counts of Class D felony intimidation and misdemeanor counts of resisting law enforcement, criminal trespass, two counts of battery and disorderly conduct, and a divided appeals panel affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting Walls’ arguments that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the criminal trespass and convictions, that the jury was improperly instructed, that the trial court improperly limited his closing argument, and that the voluntary intoxication statute is unconstitutional. Dissenting Judge Patricia Riley would reverse the criminal trespass conviction, holding that residents of an apartment complex could not ask Walls to leave the common areas outside their doors where he was creating a disturbance.

Terry Eldridge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1301-CR-24
Criminal. Dismisses appeal to trial court’s denial of petition for additional credit time for completing a rehabilitative program prior to sentencing. Rules under Appellate Rule 9, Eldridge did not file a timely notice of his appeal. The proper time to file an appeal was within 30 days of the court’s 2006 sentencing order which Eldridge did not do.   

Kevin Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1208-CR-628
Criminal. Affirms convictions for battery, a Class C felony; and intimidation, a Class C felony.

Isaiah Adams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1212-CR-605
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Joshua Steelman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1212-CR-661
Criminal. Affirms convictions for theft, as a Class D felony; criminal mischief, as a Class B misdemeanor; and unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle, as a Class B misdemeanor.

Clifford N. Whitmer, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1302-CR-70
Criminal. Affirms 50-year sentence for conviction of robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Class A felony.

Timothy G. Lyles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A02-1302-CR-179
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting along with sentence for a 40-year aggregate term.

In the Matter of D.S., Child in Need of Services; R.J. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1301-JC-26
Juvenile. Affirms the juvenile court’s adjudication of R.J.’s (father) child, D.S., as a child in need of services.

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

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT