When the State fails to meet its burden at a forfeiture hearing, the trial court must order the money released to the person to whom it belongs. When the money was seized from the person contesting the forfeiture, the court will release the money to that person. But when someone else contests the forfeiture, that party must produce evidence showing the money belongs to them. The court must then determine whether that person has established ownership. If so, the court must order the money returned to that person. But if that person has not established ownership, the court must order the money returned to the person from whom the money was seized.
Civil
Converging Capital, LLC v. Steglich, No. 23A-CC-2854, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 1, 2024).
There is no limitations period for the initiation of proceedings supplemental.
Roush v. Roush, No. 23A-DC-2290 __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2024).
Trial court abused its discretion when it granted attorney’s motion to withdraw in violation of T.R. 3.1(H). No prejudice would have resulted to the other party had the trial court continued the hearing by 10 days to give the required party notice of her attorney’s intent to withdraw.
Perry County, Ind. v. Huck, No. 24A-PL-418, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2024).
Elected county officials are not per se full-time employees such that counties must provide them with health insurance coverage.
Andrew Nemeth Properties, LLC v. Panzica, No. 23A-PL-1383, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 17, 2024).
A pre-formation oral contract may establish an LLC’s initial membership. Plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial on his unjust enrichment claim under Article 1, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution.