Thursday, March 05, 2009
Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court vacates transfer grant in Gunkel case
By an order dated March 4th, the Supreme Court has ordered:
By order dated January 15, 2009, the Court granted a petition seeking transfer of jurisdiction over this appeal from the Court of Appeals to this Court. After further review, including oral argument, the Court has determined that transfer was improvidently granted.Oral arguments were heard Feb. 27th. The case, described in this Feb. 23rd "Upcoming Oral Arguments" entry, is particularly memorable because of Judge Kirsch's June 27, 2008 dissent, which began at p. 28 of 30 of the NFP COA opinion:
Accordingly, the order granting transfer is VACATED. The Court of Appeals' Not for Publication Memorandum Decision is no longer vacated under Appellate Rule 58(A) and is REINSTATED. The transfer petition filed by Appellants is DENIED.
Multiple motions. Multiple hearings. Multiple judges. Parties admitting they entered into a contract, then denying that they entered into a contract. Bifurcated trials. Inconsistent positions. Inconsistent rulings. Summary judgments granted. Summary judgments denied. Summary judgments granted but not followed. Three appeals. Eight years and still unresolved. Attorney fees in excess of the amount in controversy.See also this report on the oral argument in this Feb. 27th ILB entry.
It will soon be ten years since the Gunkels entered into a contract for construction of their new home. During this decade, they have not been served well by either their contractors or our legal system. Were Dante Alighieri alive today, this case would provide him with the material to add a tenth circle to his Inferno and call it “Litigation Hell.”