Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 9 today (and 12 NFP)
For publication opinions today (9):
In Sterling Commercial Credit - Michigan, LLC v. Hammert's Iron Works, Inc., a 9-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Sterling Commercial Credit – Michigan, LLC, (“Sterling”) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Hammert’s Iron Works, Inc., (“Hammert’s”) on both Sterling’s complaint and Hammert’s counterclaim. We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of Sterling on its complaint as well as on Hammert’s counterclaim. * * *In Glenn Hatmaker v. Betty Hatmaker, a 9-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
Although we have found no similar Indiana cases, our result is consistent with similar case law from other jurisdictions. See Quantum Corporate Funding Ltd. v. L.P.G. Associates, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 320, 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) (holding that account debtor’s assurance to factor gives rise to an estoppel predicated upon the factor’s reliance on that assurance in purchasing the assignment from the vendor); Dimmitt & Owens Financial, Inc. v. Realtek Industries, 280 N.W.2d 827, 829 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979) (holding that account debtor that completed verification letter estopped to deny liability).
Glenn Hatmaker (“Father”) appeals from the deemed denial of a motion to correct error which challenged an order denying his motions for unsupervised parenting time with his child with Betty Hatmaker (“Mother”), and modification of child support. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. * * *In Diane S. Brown Bell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Bryant Company, Inc., a 12-page opinion, Judge Friedlander concludes:
Conclusion. The order for supervised parenting time, modifiable upon agreement of the parties, is contrary to law. The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to modify Father’s child support obligation in the face of uncontroverted evidence that Mother’s income had increased substantially while Father’s income had decreased substantially.
Considering the foregoing, it is apparent to us that in order to determine whether certification of the class here is appropriate under T.R. 23, the trial court will be required to consider matters beyond the pleadings. Accordingly, this could not provide a valid basis for granting a T.R. 12(C) judgment on the pleadings in favor of Bryant. Therefore, judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.In Debra A. Roop v. Dean A. Buchanan, a 10-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Appellant-Petitioner, Debbie Roop (Roop) [pro se], appeals the trial court’s order to pay her child support arrearage to Tina Buchanan (Buchanan). We affirm in part and reverse in part.In Joseph Everroad v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
Roop raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Roop to pay her child support arrearage to her adult child, Buchanan, instead of to Appellee-Respondent, Dean Buchanan (Dean), who is deceased. * * *
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly ordered Roop to pay the accrued child support obligation to Buchanan for satisfaction of Dean’s funeral expenses. However, the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded the remainder of the child support arrearage to the emancipated children.
Joseph Everroad (“Everroad”) appeals his conviction for Robbery, as a Class B felony, presenting the sole issue of whether the trial court admitted evidence in contravention of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. We affirm. * * *
The trial court ruled that Thomas could testify before the jury as a skilled witness and further concluded, with respect to the AT & T legend: “It is merely an aid and a tool that this witness is using to make a determination of what the short hand abbreviations are that AT & T is using in the document that they sent to him.” * * *
Conclusion. Everroad enjoyed the right to confront Thomas, who testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination. The legend to which he referred was not testimonial. Everroad has shown no deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
NFP civil opinions today (6):
NFP criminal opinions today (6):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 27, 2013 01:53 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions