« Ind. Courts - Judge Stephen M. Jessup, Howard Superior Court 2, admonished [Updated] | Main | Ind. Law - "Golf carts a cheaper, but illegal, way to get around small towns" »

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Ind. Decisions - - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 8 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In In the Matter of the Estate of Lawrence W. Inlow; Anita Inlow v. Jason L. Inlow, Heather N. Johnson, et al. , a 12-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

Following Indianapolis attorney Lawrence W. Inlow’s funeral and burial, his widow, Anita, paid those expenses and then received reimbursement from his estate (“estate”). In turn, the Personal Representative of his estate and four of his five children sought reimbursement of these expenses from Inlow’s wrongful death settlement proceeds (“wrongful death proceeds”). The trial court approved this reimbursement. Anita filed a motion to correct error, arguing that the trial court had distributed proceeds from the wrongful death proceeds contrary to Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1. The trial court denied the motion, and Anita now appeals. She argues that Indiana Code § 34-23-1-1 requires the payment of funeral and burial expenses from a wrongful death award to a decedent’s estate only where the award specifies what portion is attributable to funeral and burial expenses. Concluding that Inlow’s funeral and burial expenses were properly reimbursed to his estate, we affirm. * * *

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anita’s motion to correct error. Affirmed.

MATHIAS, J., concur.
MAY, J., dissents with separate opinion. [which begins] The majority would uphold the award to the estate of proceeds from the wrongful death settlement in an amount equal to the funeral and burial expenses, on the premise Ind. Code § 34-23-2-2 does not require “itemization” of wrongful death award proceeds. Because the statute undoubtedly requires such damages be categorized, if not “itemized,” I must respectfully dissent.

In William A. Brackin v. Peggy J. Brackin , an 11-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:
William Brackin appeals the trial court’s distribution of property pursuant to its dissolution of William’s marriage to Peggy Brackin. Specifically, William argues that the trial court erred in awarding Peggy a 2006 Buick Lucerne automobile (“Lucerne”). Concluding that the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that William and Peggy intended the Lucerne to be a gift to Peggy from William, we affirm. * * *

The evidence in this case is uncontroverted that William gave the Lucerne to Peggy with the words, “Come out and see the new car I bought you.”; that Peggy primarily drove the Lucerne for her personal use; that William drove the Lucerne only occasionally or while the two were riding in the Lucerne together; and that William damaged the vehicle in a fit of angry retaliation directed at Peggy. William presented no evidence to negate his donative intent aside from his name continuing to appear on the certificate of title. Therefore, we find, as a matter of law, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes William’s donative intent and that William and Peggy intended the Lucerne as a gift to Peggy from William.

In State of Indiana v. Kelvin Calmes , an 11-page opinion on rehearing, Judge Brown writes:
The State of Indiana appealed the trial court’s grant of a motion to suppress filed by Kelvin Calmes. The State raised one issue, which we revised and restated as whether the trial court erred when it granted the motion to suppress. We reviewed this issue in an unpublished memorandum decision and affirmed the trial court’s grant of the motion to suppress. See State v. Calmes, No. 02A03-0802-CR-56, slip op. at 7 (Ind. Ct. App. June 27, 2008). The State subsequently filed a petition for rehearing. We reaffirm our opinion but grant the State’s petition for rehearing to address the State’s rehearing argument that our reliance on Finger v. State, 799 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 2003), was misplaced. * * *

We grant rehearing and clarify and affirm our original opinion as set forth herein.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

Joseph Elliott v. Wanda Elliott (NFP) - "Joseph Elliot appeals the trial court’s dissolution decree, which dissolved his marriage to Wanda Elliot and divided the marital estate between Joseph and Wanda. On appeal, Joseph raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly included proceeds from a lump-sum worker’s compensation settlement award (the “Settlement Proceeds”) as marital property subject to division. Concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in including the Settlement Proceeds as marital property subject to division, we affirm."

NFP criminal opinions today (7):

Dewayne Easley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael Buckner v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Claude F. Wixson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Cory J. Buehner v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Justin M. Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Paul John Kocielko, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Rita McKnight v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 18, 2008 01:42 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions