Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 8 today (and 7 NFP)
For publication opinions today (8):
In In re the Marriage of: Wade R. Meisberger v. Margaret Bishop f/k/a Margaret Meisberger, a 13-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Wade Meisberger (“Father”), pro se, appeals, the trial court’s Order on All Pending Issues denying his Motion to Modify Parenting Time, as well as his motion to correct error. Father raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the court erred in denying his Motion to Modify Parenting Time and motion to correct error. We remand.In Daryl Schweitzer and Lynn Schweitzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company and Jennifer Gholson Insurance Agency, a 20-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Based upon the record, we find the circumstances do not constitute a special relationship between Gholson and the Schweitzers and no special circumstances exist which would give rise to a duty to advise. Accordingly, Gholson was under no duty to advise the Schweitzers about the adequacy of the coverage or any alternative coverage which may have been available, and Gholson did not breach her general duty. See Myers, 921 N.E.2d at 882-890. Further, Gholson was under no duty to provide a replacement cost estimate, and an expectation of full replacement coverage does not in itself impose a duty on an agent to provide advice to an insured regarding the amount of coverage that should be purchased. Id. at 889. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Gholson. * * *In Jeffrey Crider v. Christina Crider, a 57-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
Based upon the designated evidence set forth above and in the record, we find the Schweitzers are not entitled to additional payments under their homeowners insurance policy and that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of American Family.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees.
Jeff Crider appeals various parts of the trial court’s decree dissolving his marriage to Christina Crider, as well as several post-judgment orders. Several business entities in which Jeff has an interest also have intervened in this case. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. * * *In State of Indiana v. Brandon Scott Schulze, a 6-page opinion, Judge May writes:
We cannot say the trial court erred in ordering Jeff to pay to Christina an equalization judgment of $4,752,066, plus interest accruing after ninety days, and to pay any attorney fees Christina incurs in collecting the judgment. We also find no clear error in the trial court’s valuations of CCI, North Park, and Logan, and in its decisions to exclude purported loans made by Robert to Jeff from liabilities of the marital estate; to conclude otherwise would constitute reweighing the evidence. We also affirm the trial court’s decision to delay reduction of Jeff’s child support obligation for ninety days. However, the trial court’s decision to modify the obligation after the first appeal was initiated is void, and Jeff’s support obligation remains at $308 per week. We also hold that upon Jeff’s payment of the equalization judgment, the trial court should recalculate Christina’s income and Jeff’s child support obligation accordingly. Although the trial court did not err in granting Christina security interests in Jeff’s CCI stock and his LLC membership interests, we find error in its decision to automatically vest “ownership and control” in those stock and membership interests upon Jeff’s failure to pay the equalization judgment within 180 days. We reverse the dissolution decree to that extent and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Finally, although the garnishment and attachment orders did not erroneously garnish or attach future-acquired property by Jeff, and it was proper to extend garnishment or attachment to future loan proceeds he may receive from the Crider Entities, we remand for the trial court to enter amended garnishment, attachment, and child support income withholding orders that comply with Indiana Code Section 24-4.5-5-105.
The State of Indiana appeals the reinstatement of Brandon Scott Schulze’s driving privileges, which had been suspended because he refused to take a chemical test for alcohol intoxication in violation of the Indiana Implied Consent law. See Ind. Code § 9-30-6-7. The trial court reinstated Schulze’s privileges because the deputy who offered the test to Schulze was not certified to administer the test. The State argues the court’s decision was erroneous because Schulze’s refusal to take the test obviated any need for a deputy trained to administer the test. We reverse.In Louise Frontz, Guardian of the Person and Estate of Brian O'Neal Frontz, and Brian Frontz v. Middletown Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sinclair GlassIn Steven Anderson v. State of Indiana , a 6-page opinion, Judge May writes:
Steven Anderson appeals his conviction of Class D felony escape. He asserts the trial court committed fundamental error by allowing the State to introduce evidence of the events leading up to his escape. We affirm. * * *In Ann Withers v. State of Indiana , a 10-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Anderson’s actions on June 4 were not evidence of a prior bad acts which would prejudice him, but merely part of the “single transaction” of escape, and therefore the evidence from June 4 was properly admitted to prove an escape that continued into June 5.
Ann Withers appeals the termination of her placement in the Madison County Drug Court program and reinstatement of her sentences in causes 48C04-1207-FB-1287 (“Cause 1287”) and 48C04-1208-FD-1440 (“Cause 1440”). She argues that the trial court committed fundamental error in taking judicial notice of attendance reports in her Drug Court file and abused its discretion in terminating her placement and reinstating her sentences. We conclude that the trial court was authorized to take judicial notice of the attendance reports pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 201(b)(5) and did not abuse its discretion in terminating her placement and reinstating her sentences. Therefore, we affirm.In Lamont Carpenter v. State of Indiana , a 9-page opinion, Judge May concludes:
As the jury was not aware Carpenter was an SVF [seriously violent felon], he was not prejudiced by the partial bifurcation of his trial. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Exhibit 17 as it was not hearsay, and Carpenter was not subjected to double jeopardy when he was convicted of possession of a firearm by an SVF and possession of a handgun with altered identifying marks. Accordingly, we affirm.NFP civil opinions today (4):
NFP criminal opinions today (3):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 26, 2014 11:36 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions