« Ind. Decisions - "Award in Herx case decreased: Diocese to pay $543,803" | Main | Ind. Courts - Amendment proposed to Article 7, the Judicial Article »

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

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

For publication opinions today (2):

Thrasher Buschmann & Voelkel, P.C. (TBV) v. Adpoint, Inc., Joel Hall, and Mary Hall is a 21-page opinion in a dispute over attorney fees. Judge Brown concludes:

TBV has not shown that it is entitled to summary judgment on this basis.

We conclude that the court erred in granting summary judgment in Adpoint’s favor based upon res judicata and collateral estoppel. We remand for a hearing to consider the amount Adpoint still owes TBV for its representation in the Underlying Litigation.

CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s denial of TBV’s motion for summary judgment, reverse the court’s grant of Adpoint’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In In Re the Visitation of L-A.D.W; R.W. v. M.D. and W.D. , a 29-page opinion, Judge Pyle writes:
Appellant/Respondent, R.W. (“Father”), appeals the trial court’s order granting Appellees/Petitioners, M.D. (“Grandmother”) and W.D. (“Grandfather”) (collectively, “Grandparents”), grandparent visitation with his minor daughter, L.W. Grandparents are the parents of L.W.’s mother (“Mother”). They acted as caregivers for L.W. during significant periods of her life and petitioned for grandparent visitation after Mother died from cancer. The trial court found that, although Father was a fit parent, Grandparents had rebutted the legal presumption that his decisions about Grandparents’ visitation were in L.W.’s best interests because there was evidence that he intended to deny grandparent visitation absent a court order. As a result, the trial court awarded Grandparents scheduled visitation.

On appeal, Father argues that the trial court erred in granting Grandparents visitation because (1) it did not give his decisions regarding visitation special weight; (2) it misrepresented the amount of visitation he had allowed Grandparents; and (3) Grandparents did not rebut the presumption that his decisions concerning L.W.’s interests were in her best interests. Alternately, he argues that the amount of visitation the trial court awarded Grandparents exceeds that contemplated by the Grandparent Visitation Act. Because the trial court did give Father’s decisions regarding visitation special weight, did not misrepresent the amount of visitation Father had allowed and intended to allow Grandparents, and did not err in concluding that Grandparents had rebutted the presumption in favor of a fit parent’s decisions regarding grandparent visitation, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting Grandparents visitation. However, we agree that the trial court abused its discretion in the amount of visitation it awarded Grandparents, and we remand to the trial court to amend the amount of visitation awarded.

NFP civil opinions today (4):

In Re the Matter of the Paternity of: A.M. by Next Friend, E.D.A. v. B.K.S. (NFP)

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.C.K., Minor Child, and his Mother C.F., C.F. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

Michael A. Patton v. Stardust Transportation, LLC (NFP)

Timothy McNamara, Tamara Goodfellow, and Teresa Melton v. Zollman Farms, Inc., Testamentary Trust of Jack D. Roller, and Thomas Michael Carr (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (3):

Charles Farrell, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Megan N. Kinsel v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Willie Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 13, 2015 10:59 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions