« Not Law - Lafayette Journal & Courier is back, at new address | Main | Courts - Judicial Campaign Speech Subject of ABA Mock Trial »

Monday, August 07, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Two today from the Court of Appeals

In Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Monty R. Young, a 17-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:

Intervenor-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Cincinnati Insurance Co. (Cincinnati), appeals the trial court’s grant of Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, Ruby Young’s, Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Young (the Estate), Motion for Judgment Against Tri-Etch, Inc. (Tri-Etch) on Non-Party Allocation of Fault. We reverse. * * *

We find two issues raised on cross-appeal to be dispositive and restate them as follows: (1) Whether Cincinnati timely filed its notice of appeal; and (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting Cincinnati the right to intervene in the proceedings pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 24(A)(2) after judgment had been rendered and a settlement had been reached by the parties. * * *

CONCLUSION. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Cincinnati timely filed its notice of appeal, but that the trial court abused its discretion by granting Cincinnati’s motion to intervene for purposes of appeal pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 24(A)(2). Reversed.

In John F. Friedline v. Anthony Thomalla, an 8-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Appellant-Defendant, John F. Freidline (Freidline), appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee-Plaintiff, Anthony Thomalla (Thomalla), holding as a matter of law that Freidline was liable to Thomalla for the judgment entered against the Land Trust No. 4810 (the Land Trust) and in favor of Thomalla. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

Freidline raises three issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as the following issue: Whether the trial court, in proceedings supplemental, properly decided, as a matter of law, that Freidline, as the beneficiary of the Land Trust, is personally responsible for a debt owed by the Land Trust to Thomalla. * * *

CONCLUSION. In light of the foregoing, we find that Freidline, as sole beneficiary of the Land Trust, is responsible for the Land Trust’s judgment debt to Thomalla, and we remand to the trial court with instructions to identify the specific property of the Land Trust held by Freidline, or obligations by Freidline to the Land Trust on which execution can be levied to satisfy the judgment debt. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 7, 2006 10:02 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions