Opinions Jan. 30, 2014

January 30, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re: The Matter of C.L., a Delinquent v. State of Indiana
Juvenile. Reverses adjudication that C.L. is delinquent for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor intimidation if committed by an adult. It was not established that C.L. committed intimidation for a prior lawful act. The evidence established that the alleged threats C.L. directed toward his grandfather were aimed at influencing future conduct, rather that in retaliation for past conduct. Judge Najam dissents.

Alexis Hutchison and Martha Farber, deceased and Trilogy Health Services, LLC, d/b/a Springhurst Health Campus
Small claim. Reverses judgment in favor of Springhurst Health Campus on its claim against Hutchinson and her now-deceased mother, Martha Farber, for payment of services provided to Farber while she was a resident at Springhurst. Hutchison agreed “to pay the Facility the full amount of the Resident’s income and resources that the Responsible Party/Agent controls or accesses,” and there was no evidence presented that she ever had access to or control of Farber’s income or resources from which to make payment to Springhurst. Remands for judgment to be entered in favor of Hutchinson.

Joel Stoffel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Federal National Mortgage Association
Mortgage foreclosure.  Affirms the trial court’s rejection of Stoffel’s argument that Fannie Mae’s satisfaction of judgment prohibited Fannie Mae from introducing evidence to show the correct amount of the agreed judgment. Reverses the trial court’s calculation of the amount of the agreed judgment, which the trial court determined after considering inadmissible evidence. Considering only the admissible evidence, holds that the amount of Fannie Mae’s credit bid exceeded the amount of the agreed judgment by $374.58. Remands with instructions that the trial court enter judgment for Stoffel in the amount of $374.58.

Edward Lee Matthys v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms termination from county re-entry court program and placement in the Department of Correction.

Lincolnshire Healthcare Operations Company, LLC, Lincolnshire Healthcare Center, Inc., and Tender Loving Care Management, Inc. v. The Estate of Dora Berry, by Personal Representative Rita Claxton (NFP)
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Lincolnshire’s motion to compel arbitration. Remands for further proceedings.

In the Matter of the Adoption of T.G.: D.G. v. M.C. (NFP)
Adoption. Affirms order that father’s consent to adoption was not required.

Derrick Barbour v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle with a BAC greater than or equal to 0.15 and an infraction for driving with a suspended license.

Joseph K. Buelna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony manufacturing methamphetamine.

John Wallace v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

John McLaughlin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (NFP)
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment to the VA Medical Center.

John Kryza v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor OWI with an alcohol concentration equivalent of at least 0.08 grams but less than 0.15 grams of alcohol and Class C misdemeanor OWI.

Casey M. Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for conviction for indirect contempt of court arising from the violation of a no-contact order.

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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.