« Ind. Decisions - More on: Impact of Fort Wayne Disability Center ruling in other areas of state? | Main | Law - A neat story today about a family law firm »

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 8 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan v. Robert M. Sloman, a 19-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan (“Farm Bureau”) sought this interlocutory appeal after the trial court denied its motion for summary judgment regarding whether Farm Bureau’s forum selection clause negated Elkhart County, Indiana, as a proper venue for Robert M. Sloman’s suit against Farm Bureau and whether Sloman failed to provide Farm Bureau with specific written notice of his uninsured motorist claim within the one-year contractual limitations period. Finding that Farm Bureau’s forum selection clause, under the circumstances, is unjust and unreasonable and that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Farm Bureau was provided with written notice of Sloman’s uninsured motorist claim within one-year of the accident, as required by his policy, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In Elmer Bennett v. State of Indiana , a 17-page opinion, Judge Sharpnack concludes:
The facts most favorable to the conviction reveal that Hardison last saw the hunting knife and three toolboxes in his vehicle on the morning of October 22, 2005. Later that day, Bennett asked Hardison if he could use his car and Hardison refused. The following morning, both Bennett and the car were gone and Hardison reported the car as stolen. When the vehicle was recovered, Hardison’s hunting knife and toolboxes were not in the vehicle. Evidence of probative value exists from which the trial court could have found Brown guilty of theft as a class D felony. See, e.g., Kindred v. State, 254 Ind. 73, 76, 257 N.E.2d 667, 668 (1970) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for theft where the defendant was the only person in the filling station at the time the money was taken). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Bennett’s convictions for auto theft as a class D felony and theft as a class D felony. Affirmed.

BAILEY, J. concurs, MAY, J. concurs in result with separate opinion [which begins] I believe M.Q.M. was correctly decided and a defendant may not be convicted of theft or auto theft without proof of intent to permanently deprive the owner of the item’s value or use. Nevertheless the evidence most favorable to the judgment is sufficient to meet this standard. I would therefore affirm Bennett’s convictions and I concur in the result.

In The State of Indiana, Morgan County Office of the Department of Child Services v. Roland W. Hammans and Sue E. Hammans, Co-Trustees of the Nicholas Hammans Disability Trust , a 17-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
The State of Indiana, Morgan County Office of the Department of Child Services, appeals the order authorizing payment to Roland W. Hammans and Sue E. Hammans (“the Hammanses”), co-trustees of the Nicholas W. Hammans Disability Trust (“the Disability Trust”), for their administrative services as co-trustees and for personal services rendered to their son, Nicholas. We affirm.

Issue. The State raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court’s order granting the Hammanses’ petition for co-trustee fees and personal services rendered to Nicholas is clearly erroneous.

NFP civil opinions today (2):

Terry Custis v. Dondra Custis (NFP) - "Terry Custis appeals the trial court’s dissolution of his marriage to Dondra Custis. Terry raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in the valuation and division of marital property. We affirm."

In Melina F. Stewart n/k/a Melina A. Fox v. Thomas C. Stewart (NFP) , a 24-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

Melina A. Fox, formerly Melina F. Stewart (“Wife”), appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her former husband, Thomas C. Stewart (“Husband”), in Wife’s action for contempt, which alleged that Husband had failed to comply with the requirements of a settlement agreement incorporated in the dissolution decree. Wife also appeals the trial court’s order on her motion to compel discovery, which, she argues, improperly limited the documents that Husband had to provide during the discovery process. Concluding that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the settlement agreement and that the trial court improperly restricted discovery, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Husband and remand to the trial court for additional discovery and further proceedings. * * *

Because we concluded that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Husband due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the Settlement Agreement and the nature of the Monsanto transaction, we also conclude that the trial court’s limitation of discovery—to the extent that it limited discovery to the first transaction only—was against the logic and natural inferences to be drawn from the facts of the case. Wife’s action for contempt is based upon the allegation that Husband failed to comply with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement incorporated in the dissolution decree when he failed to compensate her for the sale of stock that occurred as a result of the Monsanto transaction. The documents regarding the nature and value of the entire Monsanto transaction would seemingly contain information that is relevant to Wife’s case and/or could be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s ruling on this issue and remand for additional discovery, with instructions that the trial court determine if a protective order is necessary for any document that may contain confidential information. See, e.g., Turner, 856 N.E.2d at 113 (reversing the trial court’s discovery ruling because the requested documents were relevant to the plaintiff’s case and/or could be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence). In summary, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Husband and remand for additional discovery and further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. SULLIVAN, SR. J., and ROBB, J., concur

NFP criminal opinions today (6):

Christopher G. Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Kawauan Bluitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Kristopher McKinley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Stephanie R. Clay v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jesse L. Whitfield v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Phillip L. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 2, 2007 12:05 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions