« Environment - More on: Plan Commission rejects request to move Wednesday's meeting to a larger location | Main | Courts - More on the Heller 2nd Amendment decision today »

Thursday, June 26, 2008

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

For publication opinions today (3):

In Knightstown Banner v. Town of Knightstown, Governmental Insurance Managers Inc., et al, an opinion on rehearing on the issue of attorney fees, Judge Friedlander writes:

It is enough to say that GIE and GIM were aligned with the Town of Knightstown (the Town) as appellees in an appeal from an order proclaiming them jointly and severally liable for an award of attorney fees to the Knightstown Banner (the Newspaper). Those attorney fees stemmed from the Newspaper’s successful lawsuit concerning its request under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act (APRA) to view the settlement agreement between the Town and a former employee (the employee) in a civil rights lawsuit filed by the employee. We write here toaddress the question whether GIE and GIM, which must be viewed as a single entity for our purposes here, should share joint and several liability with the Town for attorney fees and costs. * * *

GIE and GIM’s role in the events leading to litigation, and in conducting the litigation itself, was far from passive. Clearly, GIE and GIM were necessary parties. * * *

GIE and GIM contend they should not be held liable for attorney fees because they are not a public agency within the meaning of APRA, thus its provisions do not apply to them. This court has indicated such is not the case. * * *

Finally, GIE and GIM claim they are not liable for attorney fees because, with respect to GIE and GIM, the Newspaper was not a substantially prevailing party in Knightstown I. * * * Again, the significant factor here is the close relationship between the Town and GIE and GIM with respect to this litigation. Along with the Town, GIE and GIM actively sought to prevent disclosure of the settlement agreement, which in turn triggered the Newspaper’s lawsuit.

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not err in imposing joint and several liability upon GIE and GIM with respect to the award of attorney fees and costs.

In Janet L. Dillard v. Donald S. Dillard , a 12-page opinion, Judge Darden writes:
Janet Dillard (“Wife”) appeals the trial court’s order granting Donald Dillard’s (“Husband”) motion for relief from judgment, thereby modifying the parties’ property settlement. We reverse.

Issue. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it modified the parties’ property settlement agreement, which was incorporated in the decree of dissolution. * * *

We find that Husband has made no showing of exceptional circumstances that come within the purview of Trial Rule 60(B). Husband also has failed to show that the circumstances were not a result of his fault or negligence where Husband knew—as early as May of 2006—that there would be tax penalties for his early withdrawal. See Goldsmith, 761 N.E.2d at 474. Accordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Husband relief from the decree of dissolution.

Donald Singleton v. State of Indiana - "On appeal of the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, Singleton contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s late filing of the habitual offender count and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on direct appeal. Concluding that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient in failing to challenge the late amendment and that appellate counsel also did not perform deficiently in failing to raise this issue, we affirm."

NFP civil opinions today (3):

Jesse Sutton v. Robert and Julia Gardner / United Services Automobile Ass'n (NFP) - "Based upon the foregoing facts, we find that Robert presented reasonable sufficient evidence that could support a jury determination that he suffered damages considerably in excess of his $13,000.00 of medical specials. Robert and his witnesses testified at length that his employment and personal relationships were negatively affected by the accident. We find ample proper bases upon which the jury’s award can be explained. Thus, we find that the jury’s award was not excessive and, further, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion."

Dustin Southard v. Michelle Southard (NFP) - "Dustin Southard (Father) appeals the trial court’s order dissolving his marriage to Michelle Southard (Mother). As the sole issue on appeal, Father contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding physical custody of the parties’ minor child, C.S., to Mother. We affirm."

Scotty A. Godbey v. Andrea D.Godbey (NFP) - "We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Husband to continue to pay for one-half of Wife’s daughter’s car loan payment. We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it reallocated Wife’s retirement plan. However, we must agree with Wife’s argument that the trial court made a mathematical error in determining the equalization payment due to Husband. Therefore, we remand with instructions to recalculate the property distribution in accordance with this opinion."

NFP criminal opinions today (5):

Donald Jess Smith, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Paul Fox v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Andres Hernandez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Lonnie Lee Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jack Chitwood, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 26, 2008 11:30 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions