Court opinions

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Elpers Bros. Construction & Supply, Inc., et al. v. Deane L. Smith, II, M.D., et al.
23A-PL-437
Civil plenary. Affirms and reverses in part the grant of summary judgment in favor of Deane L. and Lori A. Smith. Finds the Vanderburgh Circuit Court properly granted summary judgment for the Smiths on their claim that Elpers Bros. Construction & Supply Inc. owed a non-delegable duty to properly design and construct a subdivision’s drainage system. Also finds the trial court erred in granting only partial summary judgment for the homeowners association and in denying Elpers Development’s motion for summary judgment. Finally, finds the trial court properly denied Elpers Construction’s motion for summary judgment on the Smiths’ fraud claim. Remands for further proceedings.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. et al. v. NIBCO INC.
23A-PL-1343
Civil plenary. Reverses the Elkhart Superior Court’s judgment reinstating NIBCO’s declaratory judgment action against Starr Indemnity & Liability Co., et.al.. Finds the trial court erred by reinstating the action. Also finds that relief from the judgment was only available to NIBCO under Indiana Trial Rule 60 (B) and because the company failed to act within the time permitted by the rule, it was not entitled to reinstatement.

Friday opinions
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Fernando Marroquin v. Christina Reagle
23A-MI-2545
Miscellaneous. Reverses Elkhart Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction Christina Reagle. Finds Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-19(f) doesn’t apply to Fernando Marroquin and that Indiana doesn’t require registration for Class D felony sexual misconduct with a minor.  Remands for the entry of summary judgment for Marroquin.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Billy Ray Barker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-PC-1751
Post-conviction relief. Affirms the Madison Circuit Court’s summary denial of Billy Ray Barker’s successive petition for post-conviction relief challenging the revocation of his parole after he was convicted of new criminal charges. Finds the trial court properly granted the state’s motion for summary disposition, denying Barker’s unauthorized successive petition.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jacquelyn Ivankovic v. Milan Ivankovic
23A-DC-1954
Domestic relations with children. Affirms the Lake Superior Court’s denial of Jacquelyn Ivankovic’s request for a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction, asking that Milan Ivankovic be enjoined from contacting Jacquelyn’s employer to make allegations that she had engaged in wrongdoing. Finds the trial court does not have the statutory authority to issue the requested injunction. Also finds the husband’s communications with third parties involved allegations that wife committed illegal conduct, which is speech protected under the First Amendment.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
J.M. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-JV-1400
Juvenile. Affirms the Delaware Circuit Court adjudication of J.M. as a delinquent. Finds the state presented evidence of a probative nature from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that J.M. committed an act which would constitute child molesting as a Level 4 felony if committed by an adult.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: R.S. and N.S., and M.Y. (Mother) and T.S. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
23A-JT-1192
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the Clark Circuit Court’s termination of mother M.Y. and father T.S.’s parental rights to R.S. and N.S. Finds neither M.Y. nor T.S. have shown that the trial court committed clear error in terminating their parental rights to the child or at any point during the TPR proceedings. Also finds neither demonstrated a due process violation.  

Court of Appeals of Indiana
In the Matter of A.M.J. and A.L.J., Minor Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services; S.J. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
23A-JC-2241
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms the Allen Superior Court’s order modifying custody of father S.J.’s sons in favor of their maternal grandmother. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by modifying custody of the children in favor of the maternal grandmother.