Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Court of Appeals
Emily F. Tidd v. The Estate of Gary Tidd, Sr., Deceased
24A-ES-1395
Estate. Reverses Hancock Superior Court Judge Donald Davis’ denial of Emily Tidd’s claim for a statutory spousal allowance following the death of her husband, Gary Tidd. Finds the probate court applied the wrong burden of proof and the wrong analysis in determining that the Disinheritance Statute barred Emily’s claim for a spousal allowance. Also finds the probate court’s analysis deviated from established precedent defining “abandonment” for purposes of the Disinheritance Statute as requiring a physical separation without mutual consent. Finally, finds Emily’s alleged disparaging remarks about Gary and what the trial court viewed as the couple’s non-traditional marital roles are irrelevant under existing law to determine whether she abandoned Gary for purposes of the Disinheritance Statute. Attorney for appellant: Ann Coriden. Attorney for appellee: Briane House.
Hoagland Family Limited Partnership v. Town of Clear Lake
24A-PL-239
Civil plenary. Affirms Steuben Circuit Court Special Judge William Waltz’s denial of Hoagland Family Limited Partnership’s motion to continue. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion and concludes the partnership was not denied due process when the trial court limited the contempt hearing to 30 minutes. Also finds the trial court did not err when it denied HFLP’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 41(B). Finally, finds the connection order is not void and the town presented sufficient evidence to prove that HFLP willfully disobeyed the connection order. Remands for the trial court to order HFLP to pay the town’s attorney’s fees based on the partnership’s frivolous, bad faith, and meritless attempts to attack Contempt Order II. Attorney for appellant: Michael Michmerhuizen. Attorneys for appellee: Mark Crandley, David Hawk.
James J. Harroll v. State of Indiana
24A-CR-1327
Criminal. Affirms James Harroll’s convictions in Knox Superior Court for Level 4 felony child molesting and Level 1 felony child molesting. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury, and sufficient evidence supports Harroll’s conviction of Level 1 felony child molesting. Judge Elaine Brown dissents with a separate opinion. Attorney for appellant: Gregory Bowes. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Todd Rokita, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Ian McLean.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.