ILNews

Opinions Oct. 5, 2012

October 5, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Shannon S. Barabas a/k/a Shannon Sheets Barabas, ReCasa Financial Group, LLC, and Rick A. Sanders
48S04-1204-CC-00213
Civil collection. Reverses denial by trial court of mortgagee Citimortgage’s motion to intervene and obtain relief from the foreclosure judgment instituted by second mortgagee ReCasa Financial without notice to Citimortgage. Citimortgage had an interest in this case sufficient to entitle it to intervene as of right, and its motions to intervene and for relief were timely. Remands with instructions to amend the default judgment to provide that ReCasa took the Madison County property subject to Citimortgage’s lien.

Friday's opinions

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions before IL deadline Friday.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline Friday.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Heartland Crossing Foundation, Inc. v. Chris M. Dotlich
55A01-1203-SC-119
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Dotlich on a breach of contract claim, holding that the trial court did not err in rejecting Heartland’s claim for attorney fees assessed on the late payment of homeowner association dues. The trial court had called an “administrative fee” assessed to Dotlich “nothing more than an abusive junk fee.”

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.O., S.O., B.O., R.O., Z.O., E.O., & G.O. (Minor Children), and J.C. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
85A05-1204-JT-170
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Joseph J. Suscha v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A01-1203-CR-95
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Keith Hosea v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1202-CR-76
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Christopher Cones v. Tina (Cones) Iannotti (NFP)
49A02-1108-DR-783
Domestic relation. Dismisses in part and reverses in part, rejecting father’s appeal as untimely, ordering a revaluation of the family business and ordering recalculation of child support due. Judge Brown concurs in part and dissents in part.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT