Robert Montgomery v. G. Raymond Trisler (8/9/04 IndCtApp) [Litigation]
Baker, Judge
Almost seventeen years and three appeals later, this case is before us once again. Most recently, in Montgomery v. Trisler, 771 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (Trisler III), we held that appellant-defendant Robert Montgomery was liable for the payment of attorney’s fees to the appellee-plaintiff, G. Raymond Trisler, for pursuing a frivolous and meritless appeal with respect to the amount and nature of damages that had been previously awarded. Hence, we remanded the cause to the trial court for a calculation of appellate attorney’s fees and damages owed. * * *David Simmons v. State of Indiana (8/9/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]Thus, it is apparent that Montgomery has simply continued to raise issues without merit and with little or no regard for our established rules of appellate procedure. Even more telling is Montgomery’s continued harassment and accusations against Trisler and others with whom he disagrees. For all these reasons, we find Montgomery’s appeal to be frivolous and without merit, and we believe that an award of appellate attorney fees to Trisler is once again warranted in this appeal. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for a calculation of damages to include appellate attorney’s fees to which Trisler may be entitled in accordance with Indiana Appellate Rule 66(E). See footnote
Affirmed and remanded.
KIRSCH, C.J., and ROBB, J., concur.Footnote: On occasion, this court has prescribed certain conditions that a pro se litigant must satisfy in order to gain future access to our court system. Such litigants have been subject to certain “screening” processes before being allowed to pursue future litigation. See Parks v. State, 789 N.E.2d 40, 50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). This appellant is approximately one pleading away from crossing that line.
[This is a sentencing review. Blakely is not mentioned. The Court concludes] we find that the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate, given the nature of the offense and character of the offender. Accordingly, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we conclude that Simmons’ sentence was appropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. See Rodriguez, 785 N.E.2d at 1174.[Note: See this earlier ILB entry for more discussion of Rodriguez. See this entry titled "Blakely Either Ignored or Misunderstood" posted yesterday in a new Indiana blog, INCOURTS, "a blog for discussion of the Indiana courts" by Michael K. Ausbrook, a Bloomington attorney.CONCLUSION. Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly evaluated Simmons’ aggravating and mitigating circumstances and, therefore, the enhanced sentence was appropriate. Additionally, we hold that the sentence was appropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Affirmed.
VAIDIK, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
American Home Assurance Co. v. Thomas G. Allen, et al (8/9/04 IndCtApp) [Insurance]
Vaidik, Judge
American Home Assurance Co. (“American Home”) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of insurance agents Thomas G. Allen, Joe M. Gilstrap, Thomas G. Grier, James H. Nelson, Donald K. Owens, Richard K. Patierno, Richard K. Patierno, Jr., Silvine M. Patierno, and John M. Stone (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). This dispute arose over a professional liability policy issued by American Home with limits of liability of $250,000 for each wrongful act or series of continuous, repeated, or interrelated wrongful acts and $750,000 in the aggregate. American Home contends that the clear and unambiguous language of the insurance policy provides that the coverage is limited to $250,000, not $750,000. Because we find the terms of the policy—continuous, repeated, or interrelated wrongful acts—to be ambiguous, we strictly construe them against the insurer, American Home, and in favor of maximum coverage. We therefore affirm the trial court. * * *Posted by Marcia Oddi at September 10, 2004 05:52 AM
SULLIVAN, J., and MAY, J., concur.