ILNews

Opinions Sept. 19, 2013

September 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions – Sept. 19, 2013

Indiana Court of Appeals

Beneficial Financial 1 Inc., Successor in Interest to Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Indiana v. Sharon Hatton, a/k/a Sharon J. Hatton, First Select, Inc., Calvary SPV, II, LLC, and Discover Bank
45A03-1212-MF-531
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses trial court grant of dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, finding that a surviving company after a merger needs no documentation of assignment of interest in Hatton’s mortgage, and remands to the trial court with instructions to reinstate Beneficial’s complaint for damages. Beneficial also must have an opportunity to prove that a mutual mistake was the cause of an erroneous legal description of the property secured by the mortgage.

In Re: the Paternity of: N.C.G., B.G., v. N.G.

02A04-1301-JP-21
Juvenile Paternity. Reverses denial of B.G.’s (father’s) petition to give his child, N.C.G., his surname. Finds caselaw encourages a paternal connection between a father and his nonmarital and noncustodial child especially when, as in this case, the father pays child support and participates in the minor’s life. Holds giving the child the father’s surname is in the best interest of the child.

Justin D. Maurer v. Crystal Cobb-Maurer
02A03-1304-PO-129
Protective order. Reverses grant of a protective order for Crystal Cobb-Maurer against Justin D. Maurer, holding that there was not evidence of sufficient probative value presented at the hearing to support a finding that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, intimidated or threatened.

Lily, Inc. d/b/a Weinbach Cafeteria and Fernando Tudela v. Silco, LLC.

82A05-1209-PL-459
Civil Plenary. Affirms in part the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Silco. Also reverses and remands for consideration of issues related to attorney fees, mitigation of damages and accounting. Judge Patricia Riley dissents, in part, finding no material issues of fact remaining based on the designated evidence as to attorneys fees and mitigation of damages.

Richard Reese v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-215
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Ronald Pearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1211-CR-610
Criminal. Affirms 39-year sentence for multiple drug-related convictions.

James R. Dieterle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A05-1304-CR-191
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence, a 50-year term imposed for conviction of Class A felony arson, Class B felony burglary and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Ivan Luis Vazquez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1207-PC-545
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief from a 45-year executed sentence for conviction of Class A felony charges of dealing in cocaine and conspiracy to deal in cocaine.

J.D.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1303-JV-109
Juvenile. Affirms delinquency adjudication for committing an act that would be Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm if committed by an adult.

In Re The Adoption of K.T.; J.T. v. A.A.B. (NFP)
69A01-1304-AD-184
Adoption. Affirms trial court odrder granting the adoption petition of A.A.B. and terminating father J.T.’s parental rights.

Miles Toran v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1302-CR-154
Criminal. Affirms 65-year sentence for convictions of murder and attempted murder.

Curtis F. Sample, Jr., v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1302-CR-52
Criminal. Affirms trial court finding of habitual offender on remand from the Indiana Supreme Court.

Gregory Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.





 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT