ILNews

Opinions May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Shannon S. Barabas, et al.
48A04-1004-CC-232
Civil collection. Affirms grant of amended default judgment in favor of ReCasa Financial Group and Rick Sanders. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Indiana Code Section 32-29-8-3 precluded Citimortgage’s claim because Citimortgage failed to intervene more than a year after it first acquired interest in the property. When Irwin Mortgage filed a petition and disclaimed its interest in the foreclosure, MERS, as mere nominee and holder of nothing more than bare legal title to the mortgage, did not have an enforceable right under the mortgage separate from the interest held by Irwin Mortgage. Judge Brown dissents.

R.P. & L.P., Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; N.P. v. I.D.C.S.
84A05-1010-JC-650
Juvenile. Affirms findings that the children are children in need of services. The trial court had jurisdiction even though it failed to conduct a fact-finding hearing within the 60-day statutory time limit. The Department of Child Services produced sufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that R.P. and L.P. are CHINS. The trial court’s findings did not violate the mother’s right to procedural due process.

Ronald E. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A04-1008-CR-535
Criminal. Affirms in part the denial of credit time. Reverses in part as it appears Lewis didn’t receive credit time for one day and remands to the trial court to credit him with one additional day of time served while confined awaiting sentencing for another case.  

Jill (Lambert) Fox v. Jeffrey Lambert (NFP)
32A01-1010-DR-524
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment, finding Jill Fox in contempt and extending parenting time in favor of Jeffrey Lambert.

Shonk Electric, Inc. v. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. (NFP)
55A05-1009-CC-554
Civil collection. Affirms entry of summary judgment in favor of Siemens and award of attorney fees in favor of Siemens. Remands for the trial court to determine Siemens’ appellate attorney fees.

David H. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1009-CR-1100
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea but mentally ill to two counts of child molesting, one as a Class A felony, one as a Class C felony.

Deborah P. Keever v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1010-CR-525
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor false informing.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT