Daniel F. Million v. Janet L. (Million) Swager (4/28/04 IndCtApp) [Family Law]
Another dispute over divorced parents' shares of college costs for child. "Daniel F. Million (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s order regarding payment of college expenses for C.C.M., the oldest child of Father’s former marriage to Janice L. Swager (“Mother”). Father raises one issue on appeal, which is whether the trial court’s order that Father pay toward C.C.M.’s education at Cornell University was clearly erroneous. We affirm."
Steven A. Fields v. State of Indiana (4/28/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
Robb, Judge
On March 30, 2004 the Indiana Law Blog reported here: "Court of Appeals to hear another chewing tobacco/breathalyzer case," to be argued at Indiana State University. Here is the decision: "Because we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the chemical breath test results, and the State presented sufficient evidence to support Fields’s conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court." BAKER, J., and RILEY, J., concur.
Mikki M. Bergman v. Thomas M. Zempel (4/28/04 IndCtApp) [Family Law; Civil Procedure]
May, Judge
Mikki M. Bergman (“Mother”) brings this interlocutory appeal from the Allen Superior Court’s denial of her motion to dismiss a petition to establish paternity filed by Thomas M. Zempel (“Father”). Mother raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss Father’s petition. We reverse. * * *William M. Geiersbach, Jr. v. Robert Frieje, Dave Wagner, and Tri State University, and Josh Wagner (4/28/04 IndCtApp) [Tort]We have repeatedly noted jurisdiction under the UCCJA [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act] is a question of jurisdiction over the case and, if a party fails to contest a trial court’s jurisdiction, the issue can be waived. Similarly, Pennsylvania’s Rules of Civil Procedure require a party to “raise any question of jurisdiction of the person or venue by preliminary objection filed within twenty days of service of the pleading to which objection is made or at the time of hearing, whichever first occurs.” As Father failed to question the Pennsylvania Court’s jurisdiction at an appropriate time, he has waived any such argument. Accordingly, even if the Pennsylvania Court erred when it exercised jurisdiction over Mother’s petition, Indiana courts should recognize and enforce its custody determination.
The Allen Superior Court should have stayed proceedings on Father’s petition and contacted the Pennsylvania Court when it learned custody proceedings were pending in Pennsylvania. Because the Pennsylvania Court had entered an initial custody decree in conformity with the PKPA [Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act], the trial court should have recognized and enforced that initial order. Moreover, because Pennsylvania had continuing jurisdiction over the custody determination in accordance with the PKPA and Pennsylvania’s version of the UCCJA, the trial court should have dismissed Father’s petition. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Mother’s motion to dismiss.
Reversed. BAKER, J., and NAJAM, J., concur.
"Conclusion. A participant in a sporting event or practice cannot recover against another participant absent proof of intentional injury or malicious or reckless behavior. Geiersbach failed to designate any evidence showing such conduct. Therefore, the trial court properly granted the motions for summary judgment. The trial court’s decision is affirmed."
George M. Saunders v. State of Indiana (4/28/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
Christina M. Allgood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Meridian Security Insurance Company (4/28/04 IndCtApp) [Insurance]
Robb, Judge
Christina Allgood appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of her class action lawsuit against Meridian Security Insurance Company and denial of her own motion for partial summary judgment. We reverse. * * *Terry L. Slinkard v. State of Indiana (4/28/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure] Posted by Marcia Oddi at April 28, 2004 02:04 PMConclusion. The policy at issue provides that Meridian may, at its option, repair or replace a damaged vehicle with “like kind and quality.” We construe that to include not only restoring to the insured a vehicle of similar physical condition, but also restoring to the insured a similar value as prior to the damage. Accordingly, we hold that in an appropriate case, diminution in value may be recovered by the insured. The trial court therefore erred in granting Meridian’s motion to dismiss and in denying Allgood’s motion for partial summary judgment on this issue. We therefore remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs.
HOFFMAN, SrJ., dissents with opinion:
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s rewrite of the contract between Allgood and Meridian. As the majority has already stated, and I restate for emphasis, we may not rewrite an insurance contract if the language of the contract is unambiguous. Estate of Ebelhard v. Illinois Founders Insurance Co., 742 N.E.2d 1, 2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). In interpreting the contract, we must attribute the plain meaning to the contract’s language. * * *