Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
In re the Supervised Estate of Robert Thompson, Deceased, Tammi Stodghill, Appellant-Respondent v. Bradley Thompson as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Thompson, Appellee-Petitioner
No. 25A-ES-1629

Appeal from the Grant Superior Court, Judge Jason McVicker. The trial court found that Michael Thompson’s transfers of properties from his father Robert’s estate to Tammi Stodghill were fraudulent, aimed at depriving beneficiaries of their rightful shares. Stodghill’s appeals contest the trial court’s findings regarding her absence at the initial hearing, the exclusion of certain evidence, and the refusal to compel a witness to testify. The court affirmed the trial court’s decisions, stating that Stodghill had sufficient opportunity to present her arguments and evidence at a subsequent hearing, and that the trial court appropriately excluded the evidence under governing legal standards. Judge Felix authored the opinion, with Judges May and Mathias concurring. Appellant’s attorney: David M. Payne, Marion, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Paul R. Sadler, Emswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Turi v. J.R., a Minor b/n/f Stacy Rheinlander
No. 25A-PL-2858

Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court, Judge Jillian Kratochvil. J.R., by next friend Stacy Rheinlander, filed a complaint against Michael Turi, alleging they “suffered substantial and significant injuries” via lead exposure while living at a rental property owned by Turi. Turi failed to answer the complaint and did not appear at a subsequent damages hearing, and the trial court entered a judgment against him in the amount of $500,000. Here, Turi appeals the denial of his motion for relief from judgment, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in its ruling. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that Turi was adequately served and that his reasons for failing to respond did not constitute excusable neglect. On cross-appeal, J.R. sought damages pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 66(E), but the court declined to award these, finding the violations by Turi’s counsel did not rise to the level of bad faith required for such sanctions. Judge May authored the opinion, with Judges Mathias and Felix concurring.

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