« Law- "Perverted Justice" in Darke County Ohio | Main | Ind. Courts - Supreme Court to hear case in Richmond »

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals posts three today

In ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc. and/or Michael & Bunny Braughton v. Residential Services, LLC, a 16-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:

ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. (“ABN”) and Michael and Bunny Braughton appeal the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of American Residential Services, LLC (“American”). * * *

Because American does not possess a valid judgment lien against the Braughtons’ property, the trial court erred in granting American’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In Denise Moore v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
Today we are faced with the tragic death of a child that was at least partially the result of the negligence of an Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (IFSSA) employee. And although the circumstances are unfortunate, negligence is not a crime in this state. Appellant-defendant Denise Moore appeals her conviction for Obstruction of Justice,1 a class D felony. Moore raises three issues, one of which we find dispositive: whether this prosecution was brought outside of the statute of limitations. Finding that the alleged offense was completed five years and three months before the State brought charges, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. * * *

This case represents a tragic failure in the system that ought to have protected A.G. and K.G. from being placed in an abusive home. And while Moore was undoubtedly negligent in her handling of their case, that negligence does not amount to an obstruction of justice. Accordingly, we find that the State filed these charges outside of the statute of limitations. And even if the charges had been filed in a timely fashion, the evidence was insufficient to convict Moore of obstruction of justice.

Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star (who apparently picked up a paper copy of the opinion this morning from the Clerk's office prior to the online posting) has a brief story here.

In Corbin Smyth v. Stephen Carter, et al., an 11-page opinion, Senior Judge Hoffman writes:

The following issues are dispositive: I. Whether the trial court properly dismissed Smyth’s claim that the State’s retention of interest pursuant to the Indiana Unclaimed Property Act constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation in violation of Article I, § 21 of the Indiana Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. II. Whether the trial court properly dismissed Smyth’s claim that Indiana Unclaimed Property Act requires the State to pay him the value of his stock on the date the stock was delivered to the Attorney General. * * *

In summary, the retention of interest by the State pursuant to Ind. Code 32-34-1-29 does not constitute an unconstitutional taking. Furthermore, the payment of the net proceeds of the sale of the Topps stock was proper under the Act. The trial court did not err in dismissing Smyth’s complaint.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 12, 2006 12:28 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions