Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 17 NFP)
For publication opinions today (4):
Donald E. Williams v. State of Indiana - "Donald Williams appeals the revocation of his placement in home detention. Williams raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a urinalysis report and a home detention monitoring report into evidence. We affirm."
In Nikki Brindle v. Patrick J. Arata , a 5-page opinion in a case with a pro se appellant, Judge Bradford writes:
Appellant/Defendant Nikki Brindle appeals from the trial court's determination that certain funds in her bank account were subject to attachment to satisfy a judgment in favor of Appellee/Plaintiff Patrick Arata. Because we conclude that the student loan funds at issue here may not be attached to satisfy a judgment, we reverse. * * *In Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.O.; A.A. & S.O. v. I.D.C.S. , a 15-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Riley writes:
The trial court concluded that Brindle's student loan funds lost their exempt status when she deposited the funds in her private account, on the basis that there was no federal law specifically saying that they retained their exempt status when so disposed of. We do not reach the same conclusion.
Simply put, the plain language of section 1095a exempts student loan funds and property traceable to those funds from garnishment or attachment, and there is no provision to which either party points us, or of which we are aware, that terminates this status, whether by deposit in a personal bank account or otherwise. Moreover, neither party directs our attention to any case law that might support a conclusion that deposit in a bank account automatically terminates the exempt status of student loan funds under federal law.
Appellant-Respondent, S.O. (Father), appeals the trial court's involuntary termination of his parental rights to his minor child, J.O. We reverse.In M.S. v. C.S. , a 16-page opinion, Judge Mathias writes:
Father presents several issues for review, only one of which we find dispositive and which we restate as follows: Whether Father was denied procedural due process when the Indiana Department of Child Services, Porter County (PCDCS), failed to provide Father with notice of all hearings and copies of all orders and other documents issued during the child in need of services (CHINS) proceedings despite PCDCS's actual knowledge of Father's name and whereabouts. * * *
BAILEY, J., concurs.
KIRSCH, J., dissents with separate opinion. [that begins, at p. 14] I fully agree with my colleagues' conclusion that Father was denied due process during the CHINS proceeding. Indeed, I would be harsher in my criticism of the Porter County Office of Child Services and its knowing and repeated failure to provide Father with the rights due to him. That said, I do not believe that such failures deprived Father of procedural due process with respect to the termination of his parental rights.
The Bartholomew Superior Court vacated its previous order granting M.S. joint legal custody of and parenting time with S.S., a child born to C.S., M.S.‟s former domestic partner. M.S. appeals and raises three issues, which we reorder and restate as follows: I. Whether the trial court erred in vacating its prior custody and visitation order; II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by modifying custody of S.S. without a petition to modify or a showing of a substantial change in circumstances; and III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying M.S. parenting time. We affirm. * * *NFP civil opinions today (6):
The trial court properly vacated its September 5, 2007 order because the order was void ab initio. Because the September 5, 2007 order was a legal nullity, there was no existing custody or visitation order for the trial court to modify. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying visitation to M.S.
NFP criminal opinions today (11):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 7, 2010 02:29 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions