ILNews

Opinions Dec. 7, 2010

December 7, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after yesterday’s deadline:

Indiana Tax Court

Shelby County Assessor v. Shelby’s Landing-II, LP (NFP)
49T10-1004-TA-17
Tax. Affirms the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review that valued Shelby’s Landing - II LP’s two apartment complexes at $3,742,500 for the 2006 tax year (the year at issue). At issue was whether the Indiana Board’s final determination was arbitrary and capricious or not supported by substantial evidence.

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

M.S. v. C.S.
03A01-1003-DR-140
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order to vacate a previous order granting M.S. joint legal custody of and parenting time with S.S., a child born to C.S., M.S.’s former domestic partner of more than 10 years. M.S. appealed and raised three issues: whether the trial court erred in vacating its prior custody and visitation order; whether the trial court abused its discretion by modifying custody of S.S. without a petition to modify or a showing of a substantial change in circumstances; and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying M.S. parenting time.

Nikki Brindle v. Patrick J. Arata
02A05-1004-SC-239
Small claims. Reverses and remands trial court’s determination that certain funds in Brindle’s bank account that were from a student loan were subject to attachment to satisfy a judgment in favor of appellee-plaintiff Patrick Arata. Appellate court concludes that student loan funds at issue here may not be attached to satisfy a judgment.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.S.O.; S.O. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
64A05-1005-JT-304
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s involuntary termination of father’s parental rights to his minor child. Majority of appellate court panel concluded the trial court’s order violated the father’s due process rights because the Porter County division of IDCS was aware of his whereabouts, even though the father was in jail and the child had been removed from the mother’s care.

Donald E. Williams v. State of Indiana
49A05-1004-CR-224
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in home detention. Williams raised one issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a urinalysis report and a home detention monitoring report into evidence.

Paul Schulz v. Karen Spoor (NFP)
64A03-1005-PO-316
Protective order. Affirms order of protection against Schulz that Spoor filed against him.

Brian K. Ruby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1007-CR-730
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing methamphetamine, Class A felony dealing cocaine, Class B felony dealing a schedule III controlled substance, Class C felony dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Billy J. Lemond v. Allan Finnan, et al. (NFP)
48A02-1005-SC-595
Small claims. Reverses and remands small claims court’s dismissal of Lemond’s claim against the Pendleton Correctional Facility. The appellate court concluded Lemond had a sufficient claim against PCF, but not the individual employees.

Erica Williams-Darden v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1005-CR-268
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed after Williams-Darden pleaded guilty to theft, a class D felony; and battery, a class B misdemeanor.

State of Indiana Department of Family Services, et al. v. J.D., et al. (NFP)
82A04-1006-CT-364
Civil tort. Reverses and remands trial court’s order denying Vanderburgh County Prosecutor’s Office’s motion to set aside the default judgment entered in favor of the appellees-plaintiffs on the appellees’ complaint against VCPO and other defendants. Concludes VCPO met its burden under Trial Rule 60.

Scott R. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1006-PC-668
Post-conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Christopher Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1002-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony causing death while operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent greater than 0.08 and Class B felony causing death while operating a motor vehicle with cocaine in the blood.

Jose Caballero v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-367
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement, Class C felony battery, and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Carol Long-Switalski v. Wendeline Switalski (NFP)
71A05-1004-CC-270
Civil. Reverses and remands for recalculation of Wendeline’s damages to exclude charges from restaurants, gas stations, and convenience stores, which he authorized Carol to make on his credit card.

Ronald Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-494
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony prisoner possessing dangerous device or material.

Rick J. Deeter v. Haynes International, Inc. (NFP)
34A02-1004-PL-395
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Haynes International, Inc.

Emilio Mitchell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement, a Class D felony.

Elbert Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-440
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class D felony.

Jeffrey Leonard McCrory v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1003-CR-177
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for burglary, a Class B felony; and theft, a Class D felony.

Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Lamar Advertising Northwest Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1003-PL-186
Civil. Affirms trial court’s approval of an improvement location permit sought by Lamar Advertising Northwest Indiana.

Keith Billingsley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1003-PC-207
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Charles J. Gooch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in a controlled substance, a Class B felony.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT