Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Court of Appeals
Christopher T. Chisler v. Krysta Chisler
No. 26A-DR-880
Appeal from Hancock Circuit Court, Special Judge Christopher J. Evans. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part regarding the modification of child support. The father challenged the trial court’s calculations of his income, credit for health insurance premiums, his arrearage payment schedule, educational expenses, and attorney fees awarded to the mother. The court found sufficient grounds to include distributions from the father’s businesses and denied some deductions, while also affirming the overall structure and amount of child support ordered. Key issues revolved around income determination and financial capability for arrears. The court remanded for adjustments on vehicle benefit inclusion, health insurance credit, capital expenditure deductions, and reassessment of educational contributions. Judge Weissmann authored the opinion, with Judges Mathias and Pyle concurring. Attorney for appellant: Denise F. Hayden, Lacy Law Office LLC, Indianapolis. Attorney for appellee: Janet L. Manship, Manship Law Office, Fortville.
Oct. 30
Indiana Court of Appeals
Brent M. Bredhold v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2899
Appeal from the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, Judge Ryan D. Hatfield. After the death of twelve-year-old A.B. from diabetic ketoacidosis, her father, Brent Bredhold, was charged with Level 1 felony neglect of a dependent and convicted of Level 3 felony neglect of a dependent. Bredhold appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of A.B.’s prior hospitalizations. The court affirmed, determining that any error in admitting this evidence was harmless, as a substantial amount of other evidence established Bredhold’s knowledge of A.B.’s medical condition and failure to provide necessary supervision and care. Judge Pyle authored the opinion, with Judges May and Scheele concurring. Appellant attorney: Matthew J. McGovern, Fishers. Appellee attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Mahde M Dannon v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2954
Appeal from Marion Superior Court, Judge Charnette Garner. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Dannon’s motion to dismiss charges based on the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). Dannon argued that a failure-to-appear bench warrant constituted a detainer, thus triggering the IAD’s 180-day trial requirement. However, the court held that Dannon did not comply with the IAD procedures for requesting final disposition, as his motion was not properly delivered through the required official channels. Judge May authored the opinion, with Judges Pyle and Scheele concurring. Attorney for appellant: Casey Farrington, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Indianapolis. Attorneys for appellee: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
Indiana Court of Appeals
No. 26A-PO-1074
Appeal from the Grant Superior Court, Magistrate Thomas M. Lawson. J.M. appealed the trial court’s issuance of a protective order for M.S., arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the order. The court reversed the trial court’s decision, determining that M.S. failed to demonstrate repeated acts of harassment as required by law. The court noted that the only evidence of harassment was a single email from J.M. that did not constitute the necessary repeated conduct, further emphasizing that M.S.’s contact with J.M. undermined her claims of fear. Judge DeBoer authored the opinion, with Judges Foley and Felix concurring. Appellant pro se: J.M., Surprise, Arizona. Appellee pro se: M.S., Marion, Indiana.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Deluxe Detail, LLC v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC
No. 26A-SC-1327
Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court, Magistrate Matthew R. Raper. The court affirmed the small claims court’s judgment in favor of Avis, determining that Deluxe Detail failed to prove its claim for late fees and prejudgment interest. The court found that there was no written agreement regarding the services provided, and Deluxe did not communicate its late fee policy to Avis. The evidence did not support that late fees were incorporated into the contract, nor did Deluxe demonstrate that damages were ascertainable, therefore prejudgment interest was not warranted. Judge Brown authored the opinion, with Judges Kenworthy and Scheele concurring. Appellant attorneys: Jeffrey J. Stesiak, James P. Barth, Pfeifer, Morgan & Stesiak, South Bend. Appellee attorneys: Ami T. Anderson, Marisa R. Lareau, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Highland.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.