Trial court abused its discretion when it found that the failure to respond to the lawsuit by the defendant-landlords was the result of excusable neglect. Although landlords’ “status as a litigant may not rise to the level of ‘savvy’ and ‘sophisticated’…they are certainly experienced with litigation and the judicial procedural process through eviction proceedings, if nothing else” so inattention to the complaint and summons and their failure to consult with or discuss the suit with their insurer may constitute neglect, but it does not constitute excusable neglect under TR 60(B)(1).
Civil
In re: Petition for Expungement of the Conviction Records of B.S., No. 02A05-1710-XP-2262, __ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., March 5, 2018).
Although the expungement statute does not specifically mention PCR records, the intent behind the statute is to allow the petitioner to return to his or her former state without stigma so PCR records can be expunged.
City of Hammond v. Herman & Kittle Properties, Inc., No. 49A04-1612-PL-2784, __ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 20, 2018).
Ind. Code §36-1-20-5, limiting rental property registration fees to $5, is stricken because it is special legislation.
Ward v. Carter, No. 46S03-1709-PL-00569, __ N.E.3d __(Ind., Feb. 13, 2018).
Department of Correction’s change to Indiana’s lethal injection combination of drugs is not a substantive rule that must be promulgated according to the Administrative Rules and Procedures Act.
Gunderson v. State, No. 46S03-1706-PL-423, __ N.E.3d __(Ind., Feb. 14, 2018).
The boundary separating public trust land from privately-owned riparian land along the shores of Lake Michigan is the common-law ordinary high-water mark and that, absent an authorized legislative conveyance, the State retains exclusive title up to that boundary.