« Ind. Courts - "Fishers Town Council member will seek to become judge of newly created Fishers Town Court" | Main | Ind. Law - "Interviews indicated that no one involved in the Bisard investigation, sworn or civilian, knew about the March 12, 2010 law amendment" »

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

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

For publication opinions today (3):

In Robert J. Blanford v. Judy D. Blanford, an 18-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:

Robert J. Blanford (“Robert”) appeals from the trial court's denial of his Motion to Correct Error, which challenged the trial court's determination of his child support obligations and the disposition of a 401(k) plan.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Robert presents three issues for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court erred when it:
I. Calculated Robert's child support obligations using separate worksheets for each of his two children;
II. Required Robert to pay certain expenses related to his elder child's post-secondary education; and
III. Ordered that the 401(k) account maintained by Robert would be equally divided between the two children upon his younger child's completion of a bachelor's degree. * * *

The trial court erred when it calculated Robert's child support obligations on two worksheets, treating each son as an only child without explanation of its reasons. This inflated the basic support obligation and caused calculation errors in the support calculations for each of the three time periods addressed in the support order. The trial court did not err in its determination and allocation of extraordinary educational expenses as part of Robert's support obligations related to M.B.'s and S.B.'s college education. The trial court erred in assigning the funds in the 401(k) to M.B. and S.B., rather than to Robert and Judy, upon S.B.'s completion of a bachelor's degree, because this assignment was a post-dissolution modification of the division of marital assets. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions for recalculation of the support order and for the allocation of the 401(k).

In Kevin Barton v. State of Indiana , a 20-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:
Kevin Barton appeals his conviction for failure to return to the scene of an accident resulting in death1 as a Class C felony. Barton raises the following three restated issues:
I. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Barton's motion to dismiss, which asserted that the State was barred under collateral estoppel principles from prosecuting him for failure to return to the scene of an accident resulting in death;
II. Whether certain statements made by the State during rebuttal closing argument constituted Doyle[2] violations; and
III. Whether the trial court erred when it refused Barton's mistake-of-fact instruction.
We affirm.
[2] In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), discussed more fully in Section II, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights are violated if a prosecutor uses the defendant's post-arrest, post-Miranda silence to impeach him or her.
Scott D. Wells v. Herman Bud Bernitt, et al.

NFP civil opinions today (4):

Paul Catterall v. James Donbrook d/b/a Donbrook Enterprises (NFP)

Jean D. Schoknect v. Susan E. Dunlap (NFP)

R.B. v. Review Board (NFP)

C & R Realty, LLC v. Jerry Tooley (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (4):

Quentin Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Mamadou Sow v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Damon Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Kenneth J. DeBord v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 10, 2010 01:50 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions