Opinions

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Geist Lake Forest Property Owners’ Association, Inc. v. Taso’s Toys, LLC; Taso’s Toys, LLC v. Geist Lake Forest Property Owners’ Association, Inc., and RREF II RB-IN VM, LLC
21A-PL-2021
Civil Plenary. Affirms the Hamilton Superior Court’s finding that 2007 declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions of Geist Lake Forest Subdivision was valid. Finds the Geist Lake Forest Property Owners’ Association and RREF II RB-IN VM LLC, were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law that the association was validly formed. Holds the first amendment to the declaration did not exempt the lot owned by TT, an Indiana limited liability company, from the declaration’s requirements and that the non-residential building on TT’s property violated the declaration.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jermaine D. Marshall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-1557
Criminal. Affirms Jermaine Marshall’s aggregate three-year sentence with one year suspended to probation for conviction of Level 5 felony attempted robbery and his admittance to being a habitual offender. Concludes that Marshall’s waiver of a jury trial was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Charles C. Hadden v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-IF-2846
Infraction. Affirms Charles Hadden’s traffic citation for speeding in a worksite while workers were not present. Finds that Hadden’s traffic citation was enforceable and that Hadden was not prejudiced by a deputy prosecutor’s failure to file an appearance.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jacqueline Kristen Dennis (Darbo) v. Gary Clyde Dennis
22A-DR-345
Domestic relations. Reverses the denial of the petition filed by Jacqueline Dennis (Darbo) asking the dissolution court to appoint a commissioner to execute a quitclaim deed or to declare the judgment lien her ex-husband held on the marital home to be satisfied and released. Finds the Hamilton Superior Court “understandably but mistakenly” relied on “the termination rule” and opinions describing the rule to conclude it lacked jurisdiction in this case. Finds the trial court does not lack jurisdiction to rule on Darbo’s petition. Remands.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Elizabeth Hollrah and Janice Stacy, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Laura E. Barker v. Lisa Barker and Connie Barker
21A-ES-2432
Estate, supervised. Reverses the Decatur Circuit Court’s order that the Estate of Laura E. Barker pay Lisa Barker and Connie Barker’s attorney fees. Finds the attorney fees incurred by Lisa and Connie did not constitute expenses of administration of Laura’s estate.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Mark Dickinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-1615
Criminal. Affirms Mark Dickinson’s convictions for Level 4 felony criminal confinement, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Level 6 felony intimidation and Level 6 felony strangulation. Finds Dickinson’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor’s questions.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
B.A. v. D.D. and C.D.
22A-AD-147
Adoption. Affirms and reverses in part the grant of summary judgment in favor of adoptive parents D.D. and C.D. on their claim that father B.A.’s consent to the adoption of P.A. was not required. Finds B.A. has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that the court erred when it ordered him to submit to a DNA test. Also finds evidence that a man is not a child’s biological father, without more, is not dispositive of whether he is the child’s legal father and does not obviate the need for his consent to an adoption. Finally, finds the adoptive parents failed to designate evidence that would exclude B.A. as P.A.’s legal father such that B.A.’s consent would not be required under Indiana Code § 31-19-9-1(a)(2). Remands for further proceedings.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Alan Jones v. State of Indiana
21A-CR-2809
Criminal. Affirms the Shelby Circuit Court’s denial of Alan Jones’ motion for reduction of bail. Finds Jones has failed to show that the decision declining to reduce bond was clearly against the logic and effect of the circumstances before the trial court.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Tyler A. Smith v. State of Indiana
21A-CR-2799
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Tyler Smith’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B). Finds the Fulton Superior Court did not violate the rule which requires a jury trial be held within 70 days of a speedy trial motion being filed. Holds Fulton County was still reporting a high COVID-19 infection rate and the courthouse did not have adequate facilities to safely conduct a jury trial. Rules the 35-year sentence for attempted murder is not inappropriate. Notes Smith’s criminal history is a “testament to a disturbing evolution” form minor misdemeanors to carrying a handgun with a license to crime of violence which culminating in shooting a rifle and hitting the victim several times.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Yergy’s State Road BBQ, LLC v. Wells County Health Department; Eric Holcomb, in his official capacity of Governor of the State of Indiana; and State of Indiana
21A-PL-2593
Civil plenary. Affirms the dismissal of Yergy’s State Road BBQ LLC’s complaint against the state of Indiana, Gov. Eric Holcomb and the Wells County Health Department related to public health emergency orders issued concerning restaurant closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finds the Wells Circuit Court did not err in concluding Yergy’s complaint requesting relief was moot. Declines to apply the public interest exception or to issue an advisory opinion.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Darren Woodcox and Elizabeth Woodcox, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Dylan Woodcox v. Anonymous Hospital, Anonymous M.D., and Anonymous N.P.  
21A-CT-1565
Civil tort. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s denial of Darren and Elizabeth Woodcox’s motion for summary judgment and declaratory judgment in their case against Anonymous Hospital, Anonymous M.D., and Anonymous N.P. following the death of their infant son. Finds the trial court did not err in denying the Woodcoxes’ motion for summary judgment and declaratory judgment. Finds the trial court did not err in dismissing the Woodcoxes’ claims on the merits. Expresses no opinion on the merits of the Woodcoxes’ claims but concludes that the review panel’s process must proceed to its conclusion before the trial court may adjudicate those claims.