ILNews

Opinions Oct. 1, 2013

October 1, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Christina Atkins, and Kyla Atkins, by her parent and next friend Christina Atkins v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC
49A02-1302-CT-181
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Atkins’ motion for leave to file a belated appeal under Indiana Trial Rule 72(E). Finds in order for remedy under the trial rule, counsel has to first establish either the court did not send a copy of the order, ruling or judgment or sent a copy to the wrong address. Lack of notice is the prerequisite before any relief can be granted. Atkins’ counsel received notice of the court’s judgment in favor of Veolia but misfiled it. Therefore, Atkins had received the notice and cannot obtain relief under Rule 72(E).

Samuel C. Bowyer v. Kelley S. Bowyer (NFP)
18A02-1301-DR-88
Domestic relation. Reverses and remands denial of Sam Bowyer’s petition for modification of his child support. In his dissent, Judge James Kirsch concurred with the reversal but disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Bowyer’s petition on the basis that 12 months had not lapsed between the time the support order was issued and the petition was filed. Kirsch maintained since Kelley Bowyer did not raise the issue of the premature filing until nearly 18 months after the support order was entered, the trial court should have exercised is discretion and deemed the petition re-filed at the end of the 12-month period.  

Kenneth W. Gibbs-El v. Christopher E. Meloy, et al. (NFP)
49A04-1303-PL-101
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s decision to grant the parole board’s motion to dismiss Gibbs-El’s “civil plenary action suit for damages.”

Brant Construction, LLC; and Dune Harbor, LLC v. Circle R Electric, Inc.; DeBoer Egolf Corporation; Auditor, Porter County, Indiana; First National Bank of Illinois; and Wachovia Financial Svcs. (NFP)

64A03-1204-CC-159
Civil collection. Grants Brant Construction’s and Dune Harbor’s petition for a rehearing on their claim that any decision regarding their contracts with Circle R should also apply with equal force to their contracts with DeBoer Egolf. Also denies their “Motion to Ratify Clerk’s Inadvertent Consolidation of Appeals and for Consolidated Briefing Schedule” as moot.

Warren E. Large v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1303-CR-133
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order that Large serve his previously suspended sentence for violating the terms of his probation.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT