Feb. 11, 2026

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Sayre and Sam the Concrete Man v. Lee Trost
No. 25A-PL-1007

Civil. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court, Judge Darren J. Murphy. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in favor of Lee Trost following a bench trial on claims arising from the installation of a concrete patio. Holds the evidence supports the trial court’s findings that the contractors breached the parties’ agreement and performed deficient and negligent work, including pouring mismatched concrete, incorrectly re-pouring sections, failing to complete the project within the contemplated timeframe, and leaving multiple defects and hazards unresolved nearly two years after the contract was executed. Further holds the trial court did not err in awarding $19,961 in damages, including return of the $7,425 deposit, $200 for drain and fence repairs, $836 for patio removal and $11,500 for replacement, where the court found the patio must be torn out and replaced, the existing work devalued the property, and the damages were within the scope of the evidence and necessary to compensate Trost for the loss of the benefit of the bargain. Judge Felix dissented, concluding the trial court erred by entering judgment on Trost’s negligence claim because the contractors’ duty arose solely from the contract and there was no invasion of interests beyond a breach of contractual obligations. He also concluded the trial court improperly awarded the full replacement cost of the patio, reasoning that while Trost was entitled to recover his deposit, repair costs and removal expenses, paying for an entirely new patio placed him in a better position than he would have occupied absent the breach. He would affirm the breach-of-contract finding, reverse the negligence judgment, and remand for a redetermination of damages, including any consequential damages proven with reasonable certainty. Appellant’s attorney: Jeffrey K. Eicher. Appellee’s attorney: Julie A. Camden.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joseph Grillo and Linda Bour v. Margaret Grillo
No. 24A-PL-1780

Civil. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Special Judge John M.T. Chavis II. Affirms the trial court’s dismissal of Joseph Grillo and Linda Bour’s complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with inheritance against their sister, Margaret Grillo. Holds that because Indiana’s probate code provides an adequate remedy for claims alleging improper transfers of a decedent’s assets during his lifetime, the plaintiffs were required to pursue those remedies within the ongoing probate proceedings rather than file an independent tort action. Concludes that the alleged diversion of approximately $280,000 and other funds from joint accounts during their father’s lifetime constituted potential harm to the decedent, with any resulting claims passing to his estate and falling within the exclusive authority of the personal representative to litigate under the probate code. Determines the probate code preempts common-law claims that would interfere with estate administration and that the trial court properly dismissed the independent action. Appellants’ attorney: Christopher J. Mueller. Appellee’s attorney: Curtis E. Shirley.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of V.H., A Child Alleged to be in Need of Services, and K.W. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
No. 25A-JC-1805

Civil. Appeal from the La Porte Circuit Court, Magistrate Erika Stallworth. Affirms the trial court’s adjudication of V.H. as a child in need of services. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing expert testimony from a member of Riley Hospital’s Child Protection Team regarding the child’s imaging and medical records, where the expert was permitted under Indiana Evidence Rule 703 to rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence and Mother failed to move to compel production of records or seek a continuance before the fact-finding hearing. Further holds sufficient evidence supported application of the rebuttable presumption under Indiana Code 31-34-12-4, where the 7-week-old child sustained multiple acute and healing fractures, a subdural hematoma and other injuries consistent with non-accidental trauma while in the care or legal custody of her parents, and medical testimony established the injuries would not ordinarily occur absent excessive force. Concludes the presumption shifted the burden to Parents and that Mother failed to rebut it, as alternative explanations — including a small dog or a 7-year-old sibling — were deemed implausible and even Mother’s expert characterized the child as abused. Determines the CHINS adjudication was not clearly erroneous. Attorney for Appellant: Jennifer L. Koethe. Attorneys for Appellee: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.