Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe following opinion was posted after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline Friday:
Indiana Tax Court
Madison County Assessor v. Kohl’s Indiana, LP
24T-TA-9
Tax. Reverses the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s ruling that the Kohl’s appraisal of its Anderson department store real estate property was “the most persuasive valuation evidence” presented to the board, compared to the Madison County Assessor’s. Finds that the board’s ultimate conclusion to reduce the assessment to match the Kohl’s appraisal has little to no support in the board’s thorough and complete evaluation. Also finds the totality of the board’s findings strongly suggest that, in the absence of the persuasive value accorded by the board’s per-se rule, the Kohl’s appraisal is unlikely to satisfy the burden of persuasion in this case, thus making the board’s error prejudicial. Remands to the board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Attorneys for petitioner: Marilyn Meighen, Brian Cusimano, Zachary Price. Attorneys for respondent: Abraham M. Benson, Brigham Michaud, David Suess, Brent Auberry.
Monday opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of P.F., a Child in Need of Services, and K.F. (Mother) and B.B. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
25A-JC-10
Juvenile CHINS. Reverses the Ripley Circuit Court’s order granting a motion for the Indiana Department of Child Services order that it no longer had to use reasonable efforts to reunify child with parents pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-34-21-5.6(b)(7). Finds there was insufficient evidence to show that all the elements of the Multiple CHINS provision were proven and the trial court erred in finding that reasonable efforts were not required. Remands with instructions to provide parents K.F. and B.B. with reunification services. Additionally, because the change in the child’s permanency plan was partially reliant on the no reasonable efforts finding, remands for further proceedings on the permanency plan consistent with this opinion. Attorneys for appellants: Jennifer Joas, R. Patrick Magrath. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Todd Rokita, Evan Comer.
Amari Erik Lenoir v. State of Indiana
24A-CR-2963
Criminal. Affirms Amari Lenoir’s conviction in St. Joseph Superior Court and 60-year sentence following a jury trial on a charge of murder. Finds that Lenoir invited any error in the self-defense jury instruction, and further declines to revise Lenoir’s 10-year firearm sentencing enhancement. Attorney for appellant: John Kindley. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Todd Rokita, George Sherman.
Farmhouse Investments, LLC and Farmhouse Investments, LLC (Series B) v. Quattro Real Estate Holdings, LLC
24A-PL-3086
Civil plenary. Affirms Grant Circuit Court order granting summary judgment in favor of Quattro Real Estate Holdings, LLC in Quattro’s action alleging that Farmhouse Investments LLC breached an asset purchase agreement. Finds the trial court properly determined that Quattro was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Farmhouse’s right to unilaterally terminate the agreement was limited to the inspection period and because Quattro did not waive strict compliance with the terms of the agreement. Also finds the trial court did not err by granting Quattro’s request for specific performance because Quattro was entitled under the agreement to choose to seek the remedy of specific performance. Attorneys for appellants: Daniel Drewry, Jeffrey Kraft. Attorneys for appellees: Gabriel Retz, Scott Starr.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.