« Ind. Decisions - "To whatever extent the filing of 'notes on oral argument' without leave of court was once part of Indiana’s appellate practice, it no longer is ..." | Main | Ind. Gov't. - "Mentally ill kids caught in Catch-22: Prosecutors at odds with DCS over care" »

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 9 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Finance Center Federal Credit Union v. Ronnie D. Brand, Debora J. Brand and GMAC Mortgage, LLC, a 10-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

Ronnie D. Brand and Debora J. Brand (collectively, “the Brands”) refinanced their first and second mortgages with GMAC Mortgage, LLC. Despite GMAC fully paying off the Brands’ first and second mortgages as part of the refinancing process, the Brands’ second mortgage – a home equity line of credit with Finance Center Federal Credit Union – was never released. Finance Center later advanced additional funds to the Brands. When the Brands thereafter defaulted on the GMAC mortgage, a dispute erupted over the priority of the GMAC and Finance Center mortgages. The trial court entered partial summary judgment in favor of GMAC, finding that the GMAC mortgage had first priority pursuant to the doctrine of equitable subrogation. Finance Center now appeals, arguing that the GMAC mortgage does not have first priority because GMAC was “culpably negligent.” Concluding that equity should not allow the Finance Center mortgage to gain an unexpected elevated priority because of any negligence of GMAC that did Finance Center no harm, we affirm.
In Samantha Adams v. State of Indiana, an 11-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Adams raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the trial court denied her due process because the Indiana Code does not define the term “mature stalks” in its definition of marijuana, and the provision is therefore vague and void. * * *

Here, the definition of mature stalks is irrelevant because the mature stalks of Adams’ marijuana constitute adulterated marijuana and will thus support her sentence enhancement. Accordingly, we conclude that the definition of mature stalks is not unconstitutionally vague in light of the facts and circumstances here, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Adams’ motion to dismiss.

NFP civil opinions today (3):

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.N., C.M., and K.M.; M.M. (Mother) and C.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

In Re the Paternity of B.C., M.L. v. D.N., Jr. (NFP)

John W. Mitchell v. American Acceptance Co., LLC, as Assignee of Chase Bank USA, N.A. (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (6):

Charles Hunter v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Christopher Master v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Darryl Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

David West v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Bret Beiler v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Joshua M. Santiago v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 24, 2012 01:55 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions