The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 7 today (and 10 NFP)

« Courts - SCOTUS justices planning to stay put | Main | Ind. Courts - "Five Republican groups sued in Durham bankruptcy" »

Friday, April 29, 2011

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 7 today (and 10 NFP)

For publication opinions today (7):

In Joni Gabriel v. Loretta Gabriel, a 19-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:

This case illustrates the importance of utilizing professionals, memorializing purported understandings between the parties, and properly “keeping the books” of a business. Unfortunately, we know all too well from our experience as judicial officers, that many individuals conduct their business affairs in the manner in which the parties have in this instance.

Appellant-respondent/intervenor Joni K. Gabriel (Joni), the personal representative of the Estate of Eugene A. Gabriel, Jr., (Tony) appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellee-petitioner Loretta Gabriel (Loretta), the personal representative of the Estate of Eugene A. Gabriel, Sr., (Gene). Specifically, Joni argues that the judgment cannot stand because the evidence demonstrated that: a) the doctrine of laches precluded Loretta from asserting a claim of stock ownership in Gabe’s Pizza, a family corporation; b) the six-year statute of limitations barred Loretta’s cause of action; and c) the trial court erroneously determined that she was required to prove a transfer of stock through a writing signed by Gene. Finally, Joni maintains that the trial court should have declared Loretta incompetent to testify as to matters that related to Tony’s estate pursuant to the Dead Man’s Statute.

We conclude that the trial court properly determined that Loretta’s action was not barred and that the evidence supported the findings and conclusions that Gene had not transferred the stock to Tony. However, we reverse the trial court’s determination regarding the ownership of the stock and the percentage of the estate that is to be distributed to Loretta and the remaining heirs. On remand, the trial court is instructed to hear further evidence, if necessary, and to make additional findings as to the distribution of the estate.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

In Edwin Blinn, Jr. v. The Law Firm of Johnson, Beaman, Bratch, Beal and White, LLP, a 12-page opinion, Judge Barnes concludes:

Assuming the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not bar the filing of the new complaint, the statute of limitations did. Because the original action against the Firm was voluntarily dismissed, the Journey's Account Statute does not save it. We affirm.

In Steven A. Coppolillo v. Anthony Cort, an 11-page opinion, Sr. Judge Barteau writes:

Thus, there is at best a dispute of fact as to whether Coppolillo engaged in wrongdoing when he ended his relationship with Zuncor. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Coppolillo did not benefit from his alleged abandonment of Zuncor, because he lost his investment in the corporation. Thus, Cort is not entitled to summary judgment pursuant to the doctrine of unclean hands.

In Kevin A. Griffin and Maureen O. Griffin, et al. v. George E. Simpson, Team Indiana Volleyball, Inc., et al. , a 14-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:

This case involves an eleven-year-old volleyball player who was injured when she was thrown from a golf cart during a six-hour break between tournament sessions. The accident occurred at the home of a teammate‟s grandparents, where several team members had gathered to pass the time between volleyball games.

The player, B.G., and her parents, Kevin A. and Maureen O. Griffin (collectively, “the Griffins”), filed a personal injury action against the grandparents/property owners George E. and Sharon A. Simpson (“Mr. and Mrs. Simpson”), volleyball mothers Stacey Simpson (“Stacey”) and Sally Nihill, volleyball team coach Becky Murray, and Team Indiana Volleyball, Inc. (“TIV”), as Coach Murray‟s employer. TIV and Coach Murray filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that, as a matter of law, Coach Murray owed no duty to B.G. during the time that the team was on break between tournament sessions. The trial court agreed and granted TIV and Coach Murray‟s motion. The Griffins now appeal. Finding no error, we affirm.

In Thomas J. Tarrance v. State of Indiana

Aaron R. Nichols v. State of Indiana

Rodney Nicholson v. State of Indiana

NFP civil opinions today (5):

John Pagorek v. Adrienne Garippo and Jimmy Warren (NFP)

City of Mitchell, Indiana, et al. v. Steven Blair (NFP)

Construction Labor Contractors, Inc. v. Masiongale Electrical-Mechanical, Inc. (NFP)

Paternity of E.W.; L.W. v. C.M. (NFP)

R.W. v. Review Board (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (5):

Brent Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Timothy Rene Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)