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
Karen Guilford v. Edward Guilford
24A-DC-1587
Domestic relations with children. Affirms the Dearborn Circuit Court’s property division and its division of Dogecoin, a Mercedes, and life insurance policies in the dissolution of Edward and Karen Guilford’s marriage. Finds the trial court’s property division methodology was permissible under Roetter, and its specific asset valuations represented credibility determinations supported by competent evidence. Reverses the trial court’s determinations of the wife’s income, the award of rehabilitative maintenance, and the award of attorney fees. Finds the trial court erroneously imputed income to the wife at a level unsupported by the evidence and then relied on that erroneous level of income when it determined the issues of rehabilitative maintenance and attorney fees. Remands for the trial court to enter a new order on those issues without hearing any new evidence or argument from the parties. Attorney for appellant: Elizabeth Dodd. Attorney for appellee: Jenna Rohrig.
In re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.R., R.R., and C.R. (Minor Children), and J.R. (Mother) and R.R. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
25A-JT-917
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the Clark Circuit Court order terminating the parental rights of J.R. and R.R. to A.R., R.R., and C.R. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the parents’ motions to continue the termination fact-finding hearing. Also declines parents’ invitation to alter established Indiana law as it relates to methods of service and evidence of compliance requirements for petitioners to effectuate their statutory notice obligations under Indiana Code section 31-35-2-6.5. Attorneys for appellants: Mickey Weber, Andrew Rutz. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Todd Rokita, David Corey.
Jorge Juarez Lopez v. State of Indiana
25A-CR-1142
Criminal. Affirms the Steuben Superior Court’s denial of Jorge Lopez’s request for a mistrial and his aggregate sentence of 60 years of incarceration. Finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Lopez. Also finds that Lopez has not established that the trial court’s admonition was insufficient to cure any prejudice that might have resulted from M.G.’s outburst. Attorney for appellant: Joel Wieneke. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Todd Rokita, Ellen Meilaender.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.