« Ind. Courts - "Merit selection for Lake judges heads to governor" | Main | Courts - "A record 17 times last year, Wisconsin's Court of Appeals hit lawyers with $150 "summary sanctions" when judges thought briefs were missing some supporting documentation" »
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 20 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Wachovia Financial Services, Inc. v. Dune Harbor, LLC, et al. , a 14-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:
This case involves lenders who contend priority for their liens in the foreclosure of a failed real estate development project in Portage, Porter County, Indiana. Wachovia Financial Services, Inc. (“Wachovia”) appeals from a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Lefty's Co-Ho Landing, Inc. (“Lefty's”). Wachovia raises four issues for our review, of which we find the first dispositive and restate as: whether a vendor's lien was created in favor of Lefty's and in force when Wachovia recorded its mortgages. Concluding that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether a vendor's lien, if created, was in force when Wachovia recorded its mortgages, we reverse and remand. * * *In Lola Austin v. I.D.C.S. , a 16-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
Genuine issues of fact remain as to whether a vendor's lien was created in favor of Lefty's, and if so, whether it was abandoned or extinguished before Wachovia recorded its mortgages. Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment order that the purported vendor's lien of Lefty's exists and takes priority over Wachovia's mortgages was made in error, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Lola Austin appeals the trial court's affirmance of Family and Social Services Administration's (“FSSA's”) imposition of a transfer penalty upon her application for Medicaid nursing home benefits, which resulted in her being ineligible for such benefits for seven months. We affirm.NFP civil opinions today (7):
The restated issue before is whether FSSA erred in imposing a transfer penalty based upon Austin's payment of $35,500 to her nephew, James Mack, and James's wife, Julianne Mack, prior to applying for Medicaid nursing home benefits. * * *
If, as here, there is a finding that a Medicaid applicant disposed of assets for less than fair market value during the penalty period, the applicant may avoid the transfer penalty if he or she can prove that he or she intended to dispose of the assets for fair market value, or the assets were transferred exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for medical assistance, or all transferred assets have been returned to the applicant. 405 Ind. Admin. Code 2-3-1.1(k). Austin makes no argument that she is exempt from the transfer penalty for making a less than fair market value transfer of assets under any of these provisions.
NFP criminal opinions today (13):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 26, 2011 12:42 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions