Court opinions

Court of Appeals of Indiana
State of Indiana v. Brian Koorsen and Kelly Hoffman
20A-PL-2306
Civil plenary. Reverses the Hamilton Superior Court’s decision that landowners Brian Koorsen and Kelly Hoffman accepted the state of Indiana’s $45,000 settlement offer and were entitled to an additional $171,640.56 in litigation expenses. Finds that because the landowners did not mutually assent to the state’s offer to settle the cause for $45,000, the trial court erred in entering a judgment against the state for $216,640.56. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cole G. Strack v. State of Indiana
21A-CR-922
Criminal. Affirms Cole Strack’s six-year sentence, with two years suspended, for convictions of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and possession of marijuana. Finds the Wells Superior Court did not violate Strack’s right to allocution. Also finds the trial court’s error in precluding evidence pertaining to parenting issues with his child’s mother was harmless. Finally, finds that while the trial court’s failure to afford mitigating weight to Strack’s entry of a guilty plea was an abuse of discretion, declines to remand for resentencing due to the abuse of discretion and alleged cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Butler Motors, Inc., et al. v. Michael Benosky, et al.
20A-PL-1871
Civil plenary. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s denial of two consolidated motions to dismiss filed by numerous automobile dealer defendants against a group of customers who purchased or leased vehicles from the dealers and who sued under the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and the Motor Vehicle Dealer Services Act. In an interlocutory appeal, finds the trial court did not err by denying the respective motions to dismiss.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
M.B. v. J.D. (mem. dec.)
21A-PO-00524
Protective order. Affirms the protective ordered issued for J.D. against ex-boyfriend M.B. Finds M.B. forfeited his original appeal and has not identified any basis to set the order aside under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). Finds the Grant Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by leaving the protective order in place.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Tracey Wheeler v. State of Indiana and Indiana Department of Corrections
21A-MI-1175
Miscellaneous. Reverses the Perry Circuit Court’s dismissal of a negligence complaint by prisoner Tracey Wheeler against the Indiana Department of Correction and remands for further proceedings. Finds Wheeler adequately stated a cause for negligence and the DOC appeared to concede as much by abandoning their challenge to the sufficiency of the allegations. Also finds Wheeler was not required to plead exhaustion of remedies to state a claim for relief. Affirms the dismissal of any other putative claims contained in the complaint by Wheeler.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Matter of: Paternity of W.M.T., Elizabeth Jackson v. Sharon Thomas
21A-JP-57
Juvenile paternity. Affirms the Hancock Superior Court’s order awarding custody of W.M.T. to Sharon Thomas, the order for Elizabeth Jackson to pay child support to Thomas and the denial of Jackson’s request for attorney fees. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted certain challenged evidence, nor did it err when it determined that Thomas was W.M.T.’s de facto custodian and that modification of W.M.T.’s custody was in the child’s best interests. Also finds the trial court didn’t err when it excluded W.M.T.’s survivor benefits from the child support calculation. Finally, finds the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion when it denied Jackson’s request for attorney fees.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Aberdeen Apartments II LLC v. Jessica Miller
21A-CT-1263
Civil tort. Affirms the award of judgment to Jessica Miller against Aberdeen Apartments II and the denial of Aberdeen’s motions to correct error and for relief from judgment after Miller injured herself following a slip-and-fall accident. Finds Aberdeen did not negate the breach element of Miller’s negligence claim, and the Hendricks Superior Court did not err when it denied Aberdeen’s summary judgment motion. Also finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Aberdeen’s Trial Rule 60(B)(3) motion to set aside the judgment, or when it denied Aberdeen’s motion to correct error.