« Courts - Opinions expected this morning from SCOTUS, beginning at 10 AM | Main | Ind. Decisions - Ind. Gas v. Ind. Regulatory Commission (Rockport) »

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 6 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Re: the Name Change of Jane Doe, Petitioner, Mary Doe, a Minor, and Baby Doe, a Minor, a 9-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:

Mother filed a petition to have her name and the names of her children anonymously changed because she is terrified that Father will find them. Indiana Code section 34-28-2-3 requires that all petitions for a name change be published in a nearby newspaper, which Mother does not want so that she can maintain anonymity and safety. During a hearing on the petition, the trial court suggested utilizing Indiana Administrative Rule 9 to admit important evidence into the record while still protecting the identities of Mother and her children. Nevertheless, Rule 9 was not used, and the petition was denied.

We conclude that given these facts and the current state of the law, Mother’s best option would have been to utilize Rule 9, specifically Rules 9(G) and (H) to try to admit essential evidence into the record and perhaps effectuate the name changes anonymously. Although we sympathize with Mother’s difficult situation, because Mother did not employ this strategy, and we do not know what its outcome would have been, we affirm the decision of the trial court. * * *

The Appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant their petition to change their names because they failed to give notice of their name change by publication. More particularly, the Appellants contend that the publication requirement should be waived when the preponderance of the evidence indicates the presence of domestic violence, and the purpose of the name change is protection from the perpetrator. * * *

Because the Appellants did not utilize the procedures outlined in Rule 9, the outcome of such proceedings is conjecture. Nevertheless, it is fairly likely that some, if not much of their evidence concerning the protective orders, domestic violence, and DCS proceedings, would have been protected from public access under Rule 9. And while Mother’s desire to change her and her children’s name would have indeed proved more difficult in the absence of publication, Rule 9(H) may have provided the relief and protection that Mother so desperately seeks. To be sure, the Commentary to Rule 9(A) speaks volumes: “there are times when access to information may lead to, or increase the risk of, harm to individuals.” However, that said, in light of the record with which we are presented and the current state of the law, we are compelled to uphold the trial court’s denial of the Appellants’ petition for name change. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

In Anthony J. Iemma, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Successor by Merger with Bank One, N.A., a 20-page opinion, Judge Pyle concludes:
We reverse and remand with instructions that Elkhart Circuit Court vacate its order setting aside the tax deeds in Cause No. 41 and its grant of summary judgment and decree of foreclosure in Cause No. 188.
NFP civil opinions today (2):

A.P. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and UGN, Inc. (NFP)

Deborah K. Wagner as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Harry L. Tillman v. Jeffrey L. Finney as Guardian of the Person and Estate of R. Virginia Tillman (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (4):

Richard Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Juan A. Gonzales v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Brandan Bellamy v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Stephen L. Gilmore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 13, 2013 10:15 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions