“T.R. 17(F) permits the insertion of the name of a real party in interest ‘at any time.’ In cases where the statute of limitation has expired and the opposing party raises the expiration of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, T.R. 15(C) provides the framework for determining whether the complaint against the now-named party, as amended pursuant to T.R. 17(F), relates back.”
Civil
In re S.A., __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 12, 2015).
“If multiple hearings are unavoidable, then the trial court should, if at all possible, refrain from adjudicating the child a CHINS until evidence has been heard from both parents. And if an adjudication is unavoidable before evidence has been heard from the second parent, then the trial court must give meaningful consideration to the evidence provided by the second parent in determining whether the child remains a CHINS.”
Hunckler v. Air Sorce-1, Inc., No. 84A01-1405-CT-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 3, 2015).
“We will continue to rely on traditional tort and agency principles and, to the extent it was ever applied, abandon the volunteer doctrine.”
R.B. v. K.S., No. 48A05-1406-DR-275, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 3, 2015).
Trial court properly ordered the custodial parent to pay the non-custodial parent nearly $900 a week in child support.
J.K. v. T.C., No. 64A05-1406-PO-259, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2015).
Protective orders can’t be reissued, renewed, or extended “ad infinitum based solely upon evidence related to the protective order’s initial issuance,” the petitioner “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a new protective order or extension of an existing order is required.”