« Ind. Decisions - One case granted transfer August 10th | Main | Ind. Decisions - Two Indiana opinions today from the 7th Circuit »
Friday, August 14, 2009
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 15 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Tanika Walker v. Samuel Nelson, III, a 15-page opinion, Judge Brown concludes:
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's grant of Father's petition to modify custody of S.N., reverse the trial court's restriction of Mother's parenting time, and remand this case to the trial court to either enter an order containing sufficient findings to support a visitation restriction or enter an order that does not contain a visitation restriction.MAY, J., concurs.
CRONE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion. [that concludes] To equate reasonable parenting time with the full panoply of visitation rights pursuant to the Parenting Time Guidelines and to allow a deviation therefrom only in situations where there is child endangerment would severely limit a trial court's ability to fashion a visitation schedule that best suits the situation of the parents involved. Such a result would be ill advised.Here, the trial court granted Mother “parenting time pursuant to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines with the exception that [Mother] shall have only one weekend of parenting time per month.” Because the trial court granted Mother parenting time, the court was not required to enter findings pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-14-14-1, and thus Mother may not challenge its failure to enter such findings. Mother may challenge only whether her parenting time is reasonable. Based on the record before us, including evidence regarding the significant geographical distance between Mother and Father, I conclude that it is. Therefore, I respectfully dissent as to issue II and would affirm the trial court in all respects.
T-3 Martinsville, LLC and MS Martinsville, LLC v. US Holding, LLC Hoosier Enterprises, IX, Inc. and John W. Bartle - "T-3 Martinsville, LLC, and MS Martinsville, LLC (“Landlords”), bring this interlocutory appeal of the rulings against them in the trial court's “Ruling on Motions for Summary Judgment.” US Holding, LLC (“USH”), John W. Bartle, and Hoosier Enterprises IX, Inc. (“Hoosier”) (sometimes collectively referred to as “Appellees”), cross-appeal the rulings against them in the aforementioned order."
[See at p. 3, very lengthy footnote 3, re failures to conform brief to Rule 46 requirements.]
NFP civil opinions today (6):
L.A.K.-C. v. K.K. (NFP) - ILB comment: This is the third opinion in a divorce case the ILB has noticed recently where the parties are not identified by name. All three divorce cases have included custody issues. I've learned informally that there is a new courtwide policy that essentially vests discretion in the writing judge. I have heard nothing official, so don't know the parameters of the discretion, whether it is just divorce cases with custody issues, what criteria apply, etc.. (In this case, the parties' names are available via the docket.)
Darren Crouser and Angela Britton v. Town of Zionsville Plan Commission and Phil Cramer (NFP) - "Appellants-Petitioners Darren Crouser and Angela Britton appeal the trial court’s order affirming the Town of Zionsville Plan Commission’s (“ZPC”) approval of Phil Cramer’s minor plat submission. We affirm."
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.Y.; T.M. v. IDCS (NFP)
K.H., Alleged to be CHINS; Indiana Department of Child Services v. T.H. & J.H. (NFP)
James Bedree v. Leonard Darrling (NFP)
Quan Ning Huang and Li Song v. Tanas B. Donev (NFP) - "In light of Huang and Song’s failure to appear and present any evidence on their behalf, we decline to set aside the default judgment entered against them.
"Additionally, as we have noted many times before, litigants who choose to proceed pro se will be held to the same rules of procedure as trained legal counsel and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their action. Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Therefore, “[p]arties would be well advised to seek the advice of trained counsel before wading into the complexities of civil litigation.” Comer-Marquardt v. A-1 Glassworks, LLC, 806 N.E.2d 883, 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)."
NFP criminal opinions today (9):
Matthew Helper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Maurice Dew v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Virgil Hall, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Kevin Chrisman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Darryl York v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Tony L. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Curtis F. Sample, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Edward D. Roberts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
P.T. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 14, 2009 11:54 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions