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

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT