Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Nathaniel C. Hurst, A Minor, Centier Bank and Centier Bank, Personal Representative of the Estate of Luanne Hurst v. Nathaniel C. Hurst
Guardianship. Affirms the denial of Centier Bank’s motion for summary judgment in Nathaniel Hurst’s action against it and Patrick and Michelle Hurst, in which Nathaniel Hurst alleged he suffered damages as a result of fraudulent acts committed by the bank and by Patrick and Michelle Hurst during their guardianship of Nathaniel Hurst’s estate. Finds the Lake Superior Court did not err in denying the bank’s motion for summary judgment. Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik dissents with separate opinion.
Watson Water Company, Inc. v. Indiana-American Water Company, Inc.
Collections. Affirms the trial court’s findings and conclusions that Watson was bound by the terms of its 1997 agreement with IAWC; Watson was obligated to purchase water from IAWC; IAWC be awarded more than $813,000 in unpaid amounts under the contract and late charges of more than $24,000; and declaratory judgments that the 1997 agreement continue through its 40-year term through 2037, and that Watson is required to continue purchasing at least 108.3 million gallons of water annually through 2037. The Clark Circuit Court did not err in reaching its conclusions.
State of Indiana v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Infraction. Reverses the grant of summary judgment in favor of Norfolk Southern Railway Co. Finds Indiana’s blocked-crossing statute is not expressly preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act or the Federal Railroad Safety Act. Remands for further proceedings.
In the Matter of R.J., A Minor Child, A Child in Need Of Services, S.E. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms the modification of a dispositional decree to impose certain requirements on S.E., the father in a child in need of services case. Finds the evidence supports the requirements of the modified participation decree.
Michael L. Townsend v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Michael Townsend’s sentence to 180 days in community corrections, with 176 days suspended to probation. Finds Townsend was advised of his right to allocution, and he explicitly declined to exercise it.
Brian J. Oberst v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Brian Oberst’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor impersonating a public servant. Finds the state presented sufficient evidence to supports Oberst’s conviction.
State of Indiana v. Autumn Spears (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Reverses the grant of Autumn Spears’ motion for discharge pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C). Finds Spears’ trial was set within the adjusted Criminal Rule 4(C) deadline, so it was an error for the Clark Circuit Court to discharge her pursuant to that rule. Remands.
Dontai Antwan Maurice Green v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Dontai Green’s sentence to two years in the Indiana Department of Correction for his conviction of robbery as a Level 5 felony. Finds the Lake Superior Court did not impose an inappropriate sentence.
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of M.R. & L.R. (Children) and K.M. (Father) & A.R. (Mother); A.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of A.R.’s parental rights to M.R. and L.R. Finds the Department of Child Services presented sufficient evidence there was a reasonable possibility the conditions under which the children were removed from A.R.’s care would not be remedied and that termination of A.R.’s parental rights were in the children’s best interests.
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.M.F. and L.F.F. (Minor Children), J.F. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of J.F.’s parental rights over A.M.F. and L.F.F. Finds the Jennings Circuit Court did not err when it concluded the conditions that resulted in the removal of the children from J.F.’s care would not be remedied or that the termination of J.F.’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.