ILNews

Opinions June 26, 2014

June 26, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Chris Cabral and Nancy Tarsitano v. City of Evansville, Ind.; Appeal of: West Side Christian Church
13-2914
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Dismisses West Side Church’s appeal of the court order that permanently enjoined the city from permitting the erection of the church’s crosses on the public riverfront. West Side does not have standing to bring the appeal because the court cannot redress any injury the church might have suffered because Evansville is not a party to this appeal and could prohibit the display’s erection regardless of any issue ordered.


Indiana Court of Appeals
First American Title Insurance Company v. Darrell Calhoun and Barbara Calhoun, Successors to Marcus Burgher III, for Issuance of Tax Deed
13A01-1304-MI-177
Miscellaneous. Affirms order denying the original intervenor/mortgage foreclosure judgment holder’s motion for summary judgment, in which it sought to set aside the tax deed issued to the tax sale purchaser and original petitioner, Burgher, for property he later quitclaim deeded to substitute petitioners, the Calhouns. There are questions of fact regarding the constitutional adequacy of the 4.6 Notice and regarding the balancing of the parties’ interests and regarding whether Burgher gave notice in a manner reasonably calculated to inform WM of the issuance of the tax deed.

Indiana Tax Court
Clark County, Indiana v. Indiana Department of Local Government Finance
39T10-1102-TA-9
Tax.  Affirms the DLGF’s final determination that denied Clark County’s petition for an excess property tax levy for the 2011 budget year. The county’s decision to not charge the maximum property tax levy that was allowed under statute for the 2008 year is not an “error in data” that the DLGF can later fix.

Thursday’s opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
Traci Nelson v. Tony Nelson
41A01-1309-DR-424
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Traci Nelson’s motion to relocate and modifying custody of her child in favor of father Tony Nelson. Finds mother’s reasons for relocation were legitimate and in good faith and that the conclusion that the Relocation Statute factors disfavored relocation and merited a change in custody to father was not clearly erroneous.

Terry Weisheit Rental Properties, LLC v. David Grace, LLC and Dance Central Academy, LLC

19A05-1310-PL-488
Civil plenary. Reverses judgment finding the existence of a prescriptive easement permitting Grace and the dance academy use of portions of land used by Weisheit for ingress and egress from Grace’s property. The trial court erred in construing the provision of the plaintiffs’ deed.

Lindsay Washmuth and Kristopher Washmuth v. Johnny Wiles and Amy Wiles
48A04-1310-SC-515
Small claims. Reverses judgment in favor of the tenants, Johnny and Amy Wiles. The small claims court erred when it determined that the Washmuths’ notice to the tenants was untimely. Remands for calculation of the amount of damages incurred by the landlords and the amount of security deposit, if any, that should be returned to the tenants.

James R. Sapp v. Flagstar Bank, FSB
49A02-1311-PL-935
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court properly determined that FSB could issue a charge back to Sapp’s account in accordance with the agreement and Uniform Commercial Code. The trial court correctly found Sapp personally liable for the amount of the check that had been lost. Affirms the amount of attorney fees that the trial court awarded to FSB and remands to decide the amount of appellate attorney fees to which FSB may be entitled.

Rebecca Roberts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1311-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms decision ordering Roberts to serve the entire previously suspended sentence following her probation violation.

Thomas Schultheis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
60A04-1311-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation of a law enforcement officer.

E. Rodney Lewis Blair v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1311-CR-432
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Desmond McGee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1311-CR-555
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Garry D. Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1310-CR-457
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while intoxicated, finding Jackson is a habitual offender, and four-year prison sentence.

L.P. Richardson v. Eric Armstrong, Jonathon Postell, Tyrone Postell, Lambert Barnes (NFP)
49A02-1309-PL-826
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Richardson’s complaint and award of attorney fees and court costs to Armstrong.

Shawn P. English v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1311-CR-457
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class D felony battery.

Rick Whipple v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1312-CR-1000
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT