Friday, September 09, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 opinion(s) today (and 9 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (2):
In Julie R. Waterfield v. Richard D. Waterfield, a 37-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Almost twenty years after the dissolution of her marriage to Richard, Julie appeals to this court in an effort to re-open the Settlement Agreement underlying the divorce decree. Claiming to have been the victim of fraud, Julie maintains that Richard misrepresented both the composition and value of the assets in the marital estate. Specifically, she asserts that by exploiting her trust, Richard induced Julie “to accept a divorce settlement that was more than $80,000,000 below that to which she was entitled.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 15). Within this overarching fraud allegation, Julie also disputes the trial court’s summary judgment rulings on her claims with respectIn Dustin Todd Garner v. State of Indiana , a 7-page opinion, Judge May writes:
to attorney-client communications and the default judgment on Richard’s counterclaims. * * *
Based on the foregoing, we conclude as follows: (1) the trial court properly decided that Julie failed to establish that Richard had committed fraud during the negotiations leading to the Settlement Agreement; (2) the trial court properly denied Julie’s motion for summary judgment on Richard’s counterclaim for abuse of process; (3) the trial court’s imposition of a default judgment was just; and (4) Richard is entitled to an award of attorney fees.
Dustin Todd Garner appeals his conviction of Level 6 felony battery with moderate bodily injury.1 The sole issue he raises is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of battery with bodily injury as a Class A misdemeanor. We affirm. * * *NFP civil decisions today (3):
No Indiana appellate court has heretofore considered when there is a serious evidentiary dispute about whether a victim experienced “pain” or “substantial pain.” There are presumably fact patterns under which a trial court might abuse its discretion by declining to instruct a jury about battery resulting in bodily injury as a lesser included offense, but we must affirm the trial court’s decision in this case because the injuries Knowles received could have justified a charge of Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. * * *
As the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining Garner’s tendered instruction on a lesser included offense, we affirm.
NFP criminal decisions today (6):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 9, 2016 11:32 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions