Monday, April 04, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 7 NFP) [corrected]
For publication opinions today (1):
Meridian Title Corporation v. Gainer Group, LLC - correction, this was mistakenly included by the ILB in the NFP group
NFP civil opinions today (4):
In Edwin Blinn, Jr. v. Robert Hammerle and Hammerle & Cleary (NFP), a 28-page, 2-1 opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:
Following Edwin Blinn's guilty plea and sentencing in federal court to money laundering charges, Blinn sued his criminal defense attorney, Robert Hammerle, for malpractice and unjust enrichment. The trial court granted Hammerle's motion for summary judgment on all claims. Blinn now appeals, raising four issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as three: 1) whether Blinn filed his complaint within the statute of limitations, 2) whether Hammerle committed malpractice, and 3) whether Hammerle was unjustly enriched. We conclude that Blinn did not file his complaint within the applicable statute of limitations, and even if he did, we also conclude that Hammerle did not commit malpractice and Hammerle was not unjustly enriched. Therefore, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. * * *Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.F., et al.; E.F. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
Blinn did not file his complaint within the applicable statute of limitations, and his claims are therefore time-barred. Further, addressing the merits, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment against Blinn on his malpractice claim because Blinn has not demonstrated Hammerle's failure to object to the period of home detention was malpractice. Neither did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against Blinn on his unjust enrichment claim. For the above reasons, summary judgment in favor of Hammerle is affirmed.
VAIDIK, J., concurs.
MAY, J., dissents with opinion. [which begins, at p. 21 of 28] I agree with the majority's analyses of the limitations and malpractice issues. However, I believe there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hammerle was, under the terms of the parties' original and modified fee agreements, unjustly enriched when he retained the additional $20,000 even though there was no trial. I must therefore respectfully dissent.
NFP criminal opinions today (3):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 4, 2011 11:05 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions