« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides two Indiana cases today | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today »

Wednesday, April 06, 2016

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 opinion(s) today (and 5 NFP memorandum decision(s))

For publication opinions today (2):

In Carrie Baker v. Michael Baker , a 13-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:

Carrie Baker (“Wife”) appeals an order granting a motion to strike and dismiss, as well as denying motions to reconsider and to correct errors, in favor of Michael Baker (“Husband”). Wife raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the court erred in granting Husband’s motion and denying her motion to reconsider and to correct errors without a hearing. We reverse and remand. * * *

Here, Porter County Civil Rule 3300.20 is not incompatible with Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) because Rule 60(B) contains the savings clause mentioned above which allows for motions to be filed outside of the time periods specified in certain subsections of that rule. Thus, the local rule should be followed.

Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the court’s grant of Husband’s Motion to Strike and remand for a hearing consistent with this opinion.

In Larry J. Jernas and R & R Horse Haven, Inc. v. Kevin J. Gumz , a 28-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
The issue is whether the judgment of the trial court that an enforceable agreement existed between R & R and Gumz and that Gumz is entitled to retain the earnest money deposit is clearly erroneous. * * *

In sum, even assuming R & R did not waive its affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds, the Statute does not serve as a valid defense to the enforcement of the Agreement. * * *

The trial court properly concluded that, pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement governing R & R’s earnest money deposit, R & R and Jernas are not entitled to a refund of the deposit. * * *

As we affirm the trial court’s ruling in favor of Gumz, we cannot say the court erred or abused its discretion in failing to award attorney fees to R & R and Jernas. Neither R & R nor Jernas is entitled to a refund from Gumz of the earnest money deposit.

For publication opinions today (2):

J.V. v. Ja.V. (mem. dec.)

In the Matter of: L.S., C.S., & W.S., (Minor Children) and J.S. (Father) v. The Ind. Dept. of Child Services (mem. dec.)

NFP criminal decisions today (3):

In re T.D.H. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Jair Ortega Regalado v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Roger E. Carlson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 6, 2016 09:17 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions