« Law - Wisconsin governor's counsel not admitted to Wisconsin bar | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides 7 Indiana cases today »

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 7 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Rockford Mutual Ins. Co. v. Terrey E. Pirtle , a 15-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:

Rockford Mutual Insurance Company (“Rockford”) appeals from a jury verdict in favor of Terrey E. Pirtle in his action against Rockford for breach of contract. Rockford raises the following issues for our review: I. Whether Pirtle's recovery under the policy is limited to the actual cash value of the building because of Pirtle's failure to comply with the repair and replacement cost policy provision of his policy; II. Whether Pirtle's suit was barred by the contractual one-year-limitation period provision in the policy; and II. Whether Pirtle's damages can include consequential damages and amounts exceeding policy limits. We affirm.
In Derrick Chance Hardy and Robert T. Hardy v. Ashly Megan Hardy, a 14-page opinion, Judge Darden writes:
Robert M. Hardy (“Father”) and Derrick Chance Hardy (“Son”) challenge the trial court's order denying their request for reformation of the underlying warranty deed and ordering the partition and sale of the land as requested by Ashly Megan Hardy (“Daughter”). * * *

Lastly, we are not persuaded by Father and Son's testimony, given that the evidence shows that together they repeatedly acted against Daughter and her interests from the very beginning. Father, in particular, has shown himself to be extremely calculating when it comes to safeguarding his own personal interests. He coordinated with Son to conceal the valuable lease agreements; pocketed considerable rental proceeds for his own personal benefit; and went so far as to forge Daughter's signature when it served his interest to do so. Father has consistently, and without impunity, manipulated the circumstances to his benefit. Inasmuch as Father contends that his counsel made an error in drafting the warranty deed, which error resulted in his intent not being realized, we have only his and Son's self-serving assertions that such is the case and are not persuaded. Thus, we conclude that Father's present attempt to seek reformation of the warranty deed by injecting new terms (i.e. creation of a life estate or implied trust) appears to be yet another attempt to manipulate the circumstances to his benefit.

In Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.H., A.G., Z.G., & P.M.; Z.M. v. IDCS, an 11-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Appellant-Respondent, Z.M. (Father), appeals the trial court's Order terminating his parental rights to his minor child, P.M. We affirm.

Father raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the trial court erred in terminating Father's parental rights to P.M. when the Marion County Department of Child Services (DCS) had entered into an agreement with Father granting him the right to exercise visitation rights with his minor son. * * *

Father does not contend that the DCS failed to support the required statutory elements for termination by clear and convincing evidence; rather, Father's sole contention is that the trial court's Order terminating his parental rights is inconsistent with the March 27, 2008 agreement which provided that Father would have supervised visitation with his son as long as he participated in drug screens. * * *

Similarly, we believe that allowing parents to avoid the consequences of the termination of their parental rights by executing an agreement providing for visitation, or any other parental right, in an attempt to circumvent Indiana Code section 31-35-6-4(a)(1), would impermissibly tie the hands of the trial court and the DCS, while at the same time discourage future adoption of the child whose parents' rights have been terminated. Nevertheless, we also acknowledge that the agreement entered into between Father and DCS was valid until the trial court issued its Order terminating Father's parental rights to P.M. However, we conclude that the agreement became void at the moment the trial court entered its Order terminating Father's parental rights. This holding furthers the strong public policy underlying Indiana's termination statutes in protecting our children's emotional and—in some instances—physical well-being and in avoiding protracted instability and uncertainty in the lives of children whose parents have failed to rectify their situation or refuse reunification outright.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err by terminating Father's parental rights.

NFP civil opinions today (2):

Great Northern Insurance Co. and Federal Insurance Co. v. Precision Plastics of Indiana, Inc. (NFP) - "Appellants-Plaintiffs Great Northern Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company (“Insurance Company”) appeal the grant of partial summary judgment to Appellee-Defendant Precision Plastics of Indiana, Inc. (“Precision”) as to scope of the Insurance Company’s duty to defend Precision in an underlying environmental contamination matter. We affirm in part, reverse in part."

In the Matter of the Guardianship of R.S.; J.S. v. B.S. (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (5):

Jose L. Hernandez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Dexter L. Burns v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ebonee Jackson a/k/a Ebonee Jackson-Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Willie Pope v. State of Indiana (NFP)

James M. Burns v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 11, 2009 12:26 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions