ILNews

Supreme Court grants 2 transfers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted two transfers this week to cases involving a negligence claim against a grocery store and subordinated judgment liens.

In The Kroger Co. v. Lu Ann B. Plonski, No. 49A02-0807-CV-610, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Kroger's motion for summary judgment in Lu Ann Plonski's negligence claim. Given the Indiana Supreme Court's holding in Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003), the appellate court determined there was no need for a judicial re-determination of duty in the instant case. Kroger's duty was sufficiently established by evidence Plonski, a patron of the store, was assaulted in the store's parking lot as she was leaving. Kroger argued it didn't have a duty to protect her from a criminal act of a third party who was not a guest or patron of the store; that even if it had a duty to Plonski, it didn't breach that duty; and that it wasn't the proximate cause of her injuries.

In Gina Johnson v. Robert Johnson, No. 46A04-0810-CV-570, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting Robert Johnson's motion to have Gina Johnson's judgment lien subordinated. The appellate court ruled the trial court's order didn't constitute a modification. The line of credit at the bank existed at the time the parties filed the settlement agreement, so Gina's judgment lien was subordinate to the bank's. The parties also failed to address her lien or its priority, if any, over the other liens in the settlement agreement.

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT