« Ind. Law - Crawfordsville passes "Big box" ordinances | Main | Law - California lawsuit may channel Senator Miller's bill »

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Ind. Decisions - Several interesting Court of Appeals rulings today

After a lull in decisions, the Court of Appeals has posted four new ones today. Among them is a 15-page statutory construction decision, Kahlo Jeep Chrysler Dodge of Knightstown, Inc., et al v. Daimler Chrysler Motors Company, LLC. The issue: "whether the Dealers’ cause of action against DaimlerChrysler alleging a violation of the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practice Act (“the Act”) was barred by the Act’s statute of limitations." Judges Barnes concludes:

The General Assembly clearly could have worded the Act very differently, to provide that unilateral and substantial modification of a franchise agreement by a franchisor is an independent “unlawful act or practice” under Section 2 of the Act. It did not, instead only choosing to label it an impermissible franchise agreement provision under Section 1 of the Act. We must give effect to the intent of the legislature as evidenced by the plain language it has chosen to use in the Act. That intent clearly appears to be that causes of action for violations of Section 1 of the Act accrue when a contract containing an unlawful provision is executed and franchisees have two years from that date to challenge the provision, while a cause of action for violations of Section 2 of the Act accrues when the franchisor engages in the prohibited conduct. To accept the Dealers’ position here would be to ignore the distinction between Section 1 and Section 2 of the Act that the legislature clearly made.

The Dealers’ action against DaimlerChrysler is barred by the Act’s statute of limitations.

In a family law case today, Greg Shelton v. Alaina Alice Shelton, the father appealed from the trial court's denial of his petition to modifiy custody of his daughter, based on the trial court's definition of family. The Court of Appeals reverses and remands. Judge Robb writes:
Father raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court properly defined “family,” as used in section I(C)(3) of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, to include stepparents and grandparents for the purpose of determining when Father must first be offered the opportunity to provide childcare for D.S. * * *

Conclusion. The trial court improperly limited Father’s opportunity for additional parenting time by defining too broadly those members of Mother’s family included under the language adopted from section I(C)(3) of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. We therefore reverse that provision of the trial court’s order, and remand for the trial court to modify its opinion.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 12, 2005 09:50 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions