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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT