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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT