ILNews

Opinions Oct. 15, 2013

October 15, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Judith (Lund) Pherson v. Michael Lund
52A04-1304-DR-180
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Pherson’s motion to correct error, which challenged a post-dissolution order in response to a motion by Lund for clarification of a pension-fund provision of a property settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree. The pension contributions in the 18 ½ years since the dissolution were after-acquired property beyond the scope of the settlement agreement to divide.

Martha Ferguson, Anthony Schmitt, Rebecca Schmitt, Mary Meadows, et al. v. Berton O'Bryan
49A02-1211-CT-917
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of attorney O’Bryan on a legal malpractice claim stemming from the preparation of a will. Concludes that regardless of whether O’Bryan saw the list that contained the plaintiffs’ names and items they would receive, he knew that Linder intended to benefit anyone named on the list; therefore, the relatives are known third-party beneficiaries for purposes of Walker v. Lawson and are thus entitled to bring a legal malpractice action against O’Bryan. Judge Friedlander dissents.

In Re The Marriage of Debra Ann Fioritto (Weber) v. Victor Lynn Weber (NFP)
20A03-1303-DR-73
Domestic relation. The trial court erred in concluding that the husband’s spousal maintenance payments should be included in calculations pursuant to the suspension clause. Remands with instructions for the trial court to alter its judgment because husband’s spousal maintenance obligation for the period from February of 2009 through January of 2010 is $10,775.13. Affirms denial of attorney fees to wife.

Aleesha Duensing, Erica Buzalski, Kristi Buzalski and Ray Buzalski v. Wendy Johnson and Kris A. Frazier (NFP)
71A05-1302-CC-69
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment for Johnson and Frazier in a defamation and slander lawsuit and denies their request for appellate attorney fees.

In Re the Marriage of Jennifer Sausaman and Gregory Sausaman; Jennifer Hutchens (Sausaman) v. Gregory Sausaman (NFP)
43A03-1302-DR-43
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Hutchens’ petition to modify child custody. Remands to the trial court the issue of the amount of attorney fees due to Sausaman.

William Beeler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1209-PC-480
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re The Marriage of Patricia Sovinski and Patrick Sovinski; Patrick Sovinski v. Patricia Sovinski (NFP)
02A01-1303-DR-101
Domestic relation. Affirms order of educational support regarding son.

In Re the Paternity of S.P., W.V. v. R.P. (NFP)
18A02-1303-JP-251
Juvenile. Affirms denial of father’s motion to stay the provision of a child support withholding order pertaining to accrued arrearages.

Perfect North Slopes, Inc. v. Nicholas A. Searcy (NFP)
15A05-1305-CT-204
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Perfect North Slopes’ motion to set aside default judgment entered at the request of Searcy on his negligence lawsuit.

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

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT