« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues one today | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case Wed., re Evansville crosses »

Friday, June 27, 2014

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 7 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Robert Imbody v. Fifth Third Bank, a 5page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

Robert Imbody appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Fifth Third Bank (“the Bank”) on the Bank’s complaint alleging breach of a promissory note secured by a motor vehicle. The Bank repossessed the vehicle, charged off the balance of the note, and ultimately sold the vehicle at auction. The Bank sued Imbody for the deficiency balance. The question presented on appeal is whether the Bank’s complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We hold that the Bank’s repossession of the collateral accelerated payment on the note, which triggered the six-year statute of limitations, and that the Bank’s complaint is time-barred. We reverse.
In Alan R. Brill, Business Management Consultants, LP f/k/a Brill Media Company, LP, and the Non-Debtor Companies v. Regent Communications, Inc., n/k/a Townsquare Media, Inc. , a 27-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
The dispositive issue we address is whether the trial court properly denied Regent’s motion to dismiss Brill’s complaint. We also address whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Regent. * * *

Based on the language used by the parties in the Agreements, we conclude that Virginia law governed both the substantive issues and the procedural issues. As such, the parties were subject to Virginia’s five-year statute of limitations. Because Brill failed to timely file its complaint, the trial court should have granted Regent’s motion to dismiss. * * *

Even if we were to conclude that the the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss, we would affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Regent. * * *

In sum, the Agreements contained choice of law provisions, which encompassed both substantive and procedural law. As such, Virginia’s statute of limitations barred Brill’s claims as untimely. Therefore, we reverse the denial of Regent’s motion to dismiss. We also conclude that, as a matter of law, the Agreements did not prohibit Regent from attending and bidding at the Auction, and Brill failed to identify any confidential information that Regent actually used in formulating its bid that resulted in a competitive disadvantage to Brill. Thus, the trial court properly granted Regent’s motion for summary judgment. Reversed.

NFP civil opinions today (3):

J.W. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (NFP)

Jeffrey Allen Gosney, Jr. v. Teri Gosney (NFP)

Richard R. Hogshire v. Ursula Hoover (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (4):

Edward D. Bagshaw v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Joseph D. Reed v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Charles Swift v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Clifford Mosley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 27, 2014 11:28 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions