ILNews

Opinions June 27, 2011

June 27, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Vincent M. Butler, Jr. v. State of Indiana
84A01-1008-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Butler’s probation. The record shows that the trial court adequately advised Butler of his right to counsel and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived that right. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the balance of his four-year previously suspended sentence. Judge Kirsch dissents.

In the Matter of the Trust of Harrison Eiteljorg
49A02-1005-TR-485
Trust. Affirms probate court finding that the trustees failed to distribute a portion of the trust corpus in a timely manner. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding on liability as the trustees knew there was property available in the trust for distribution yet declined to timely distribute it to the beneficiaries. Reverses assessment of damages and attorney fees and remands for a re-evaluation of the compensatory damages and a reduction in attorney fees. Judge Baker dissents.

Gary Ludban, et al. v. Ronald Burtch, et al.
44A05-1007-PL-437
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court ruling regarding the survey of land. The survey the Burtches had conducted was not erroneous as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in determining that the fence between the Ludban and Burtch properties establishes the property line, and the trial court did not err in denying the Ludbans’ adverse possession claim to a strip of land used for access to the lake. The trial court did not err in discrediting the survey the Ludbans had done or in implying that Gary Ludban disturbed the original monumentation between lots 29 and 30. The determination of the property line between the Reeds and the Ludbans based on the line of occupation is supported by the evidence.

Kimberly L. Benedict v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1359
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Paternity of K.B.; J.B. v. J.D. (NFP)
02A04-1008-JP-533
Juvenile. Affirms trial court grant of permission to allow mother to relocate to Tennessee with daughter.

Jerry L. Coleman v. Marla J. Coleman (NFP)
38A05-1008-DR-490
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Jerry Coleman’s motion to correct error after the court awarded custody of his son to ex-wife, Marla Coleman, and twice found Jerry in contempt of court.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted seven transfers and denied 34 for the week ending June 24, 2011.

 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT