Trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over annexation issue. “Although annexation inevitably affects the allocation of tax revenue among units of government within the annexed area, it does not automatically follow that an action for a declaratory judgment with respect to an annexation statute arises under Indiana tax law and involves a dispute as to the interpretation of a tax law.”
Civil
Edwards v. Edwards, No. 64A03-1608-DR-1954, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2017).
Dissolution court had jurisdiction over the disbursement of pension and retirement benefits after the death of one of the parties to the dissolution.
Tucker v. Tom Raper, Inc., No. 89A01-1702-CC-463, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2017).
The trial court erred in dismissing alleged third-party beneficiaries’ complaint for failing to comply with T.R. 9.2(A) and attaching a written contract to their complaint; third-party beneficiary status is not solely dependent upon a written contract.
In re Paternity of G.G.B.W., No. 49A04-1611-JP-2474, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 22, 2017).
When the Agreed Decree of Paternity requires that Child be vaccinated based on her school’s requirements and that Mother is in contempt for submitting the religious objection form to circumvent the parties’ agreement, there is a substantial change in Mother’s ability to communicate and cooperate with Father in advancing Child’s welfare and the trial court should modify legal custody of Child for the limited purpose of making medical decisions concerning vaccinations.
A.A. v. Eskenazi Health/Midtown CMHC, No. 49A02-1610-MH-2286, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2017).
In a mental health commitment, if the respondent is not present at the hearing, the trial court’s determination of whether it should waive the respondent’s presence must be made at the outset of the hearing using evidence establishing that the respondent’s presence would be injurious to his mental health or well-being.