Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 3 NFP)
For publication opinions today (4):
In In the Matter of T.N., Alleged to be CHINS; G.N. v. IDCS, and Child Advocates, Inc., an 11-page opinion, Judge May writes:
G.N. (Father) challenges the determination his daughter, T.N., is a child in need of services (CHINS). He argues the trial court violated his right to due process when it found his daughter a CHINS based on the admission of her mother, M.B., without allowing Father to contest that allegation at a hearing. We agree the trial court violated Father's right to due process, reverse the adjudication, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.In M Jewell, LLC v. Max M. Powell and Marion School Employees Federal Credit Union, a 6-page opinion, Judge May writes:
M Jewell, LLC (Jewell) appeals the denial of its petition for an order directing the auditor of Grant County to issue a tax deed. Jewell argues the trial court should have granted it a tax deed because Max Powell did not redeem his property within the statutory redemption period. Jewell also argues the trial court erred by extending Powell’s redemption period. We affirm. * * *In In Re: Larry L. Thompson Revocable Trust; Deanna Thompson Stull v. Larry L. Thompson Revocable Trust, Derek Thompson, and Vicki Thompson Craver, an 11-page opinion, Sr. Judge Barteau writes:
The trial court determined Powell was prejudicially misled by the incomplete information given to him by the Grant County Treasurer’s Office, and that determination supports piercing the statutory rules to prevent injustice.
Deanna raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Trust, Derek, and Vicki is erroneous.In K.S. v. B.W. , a 6-page opinion, Judge May writes:
In addition, the Trust, Derek, and Vicki contend that Deanna’s appeal is frivolous and request appellate attorney’s fees. * * *
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and deny the Trust, Derek, and Vicki’s request for appellate attorney’s fees.
K.S. appeals an order granting K.S.'s ex-boyfriend, B.W., visitation with her daughter, M.M. K.S. alleges the court erred by granting visitation and abused its discretion by denying her request for attorney's fees. We reverse in part and affirm in part. * * *NFP civil opinions today (1):
We must accordingly reverse the grant of visitation to B.W. because B.W. is not M.M.'s father. While he was an important part of M.M.'s life at one time, Indiana law does not provide for an order of visitation under this circumstance. * * *
[KS] did not prevail at trial, and thus an award of attorney's fees is not appropriate pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b)(2). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of attorney's fees.
NFP criminal opinions today (2):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 28, 2011 12:10 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions