« Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending Oct. 17, 2008 | Main | Law - "Walgreens Begins Retail Sale of Identigene DNA Paternity Test Kit" »

Monday, October 20, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 2 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In James G. Clark and Larry A. Biddle III v. Donald and Janet Simbeck, a 12-page, 2-1 opinion, Sr. Judge Hoffman writes:

Defendants-Appellants James G. Clark (“Clark”) and Larry A. Biddle, III (“Biddle”) appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees Donald Simbeck (Donald) and Janet Simbeck (“Janet”). We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. * * *

[Issues] I. Whether the trial court erred in denying Clark and Biddle’s motion for continuance. II. Whether the trial court erred in suggesting that Clark and Biddle admit liability, waive a jury trial, and proceed with a bench trial on damages. III. Whether the trial court’s compensatory damage award was excessive. IV. Whether the trial court’s punitive damage award was excessive. V. Whether appellate attorney fees and charges should be awarded. * * *

V. Donald and Janet contend that Clark and Biddle’s appeal is frivolous and meritless. Thus, they claim that damages and attorney fees should be awarded pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 66(E). * * *

We find Clark and Biddle’s appeal to be neither frivolous nor in bad faith. Indeed, they prevailed in Issue IV. Accordingly, we deny Donald and Janet’s request for damages and fees.

We affirm on Issues I-III. We vacate the trial court’s punitive damage award and reverse and remand “so that the trial court may enter an award of punitive damages [if any] in an amount reflecting proper consideration of the defendant[s’] financial status.” See Stroud, id. at 447. We deny Donald and Janet’s request for damages and fees.

FRIEDLANDER, J., concurs. BAKER, C.J., dissenting in part with separate opinion: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion regarding the punitive damages award. I acknowledge our Supreme Court’s discussion of punitive damages in Stroud v. Lints. 790 N.E.2d 440 (Ind. 2003). In this case, however, I believe that the appellants’ conduct on the night in question was so egregious, so malicious, and so brutal that the relatively nominal punitive damages award of $60,000 is warranted. Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s punitive damages award. In all other respects, I concur with the majority.

NFP civil opinions today (0):

NFP criminal opinions today (2):

James Doane v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Elmer Saxton v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 20, 2008 11:57 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions