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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT