FSSA had a right to intervene in guardianship because the spousal support order diverted money that would have otherwise been used to pay medical bills. The trial court could not increase spousal support because the state Medicaid statute requires a “fair hearing before the State agency” to determine if an allowance should be increased.
Civil
Dolsen v. VeoRide, Inc., No. 24S-PL-75, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 2, 2024).
To determine premises-liability for first-responding firefighters, first the Court should determine whether the plaintiff seeks to recover for the negligence that caused the emergency. If so, the first-responder’s rule bars the plaintiff’s claim. If not, then the Court should treat the firefighter as a licensee.
Abbott v. Wegert, No. 23A-EV-3004, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 3, 2024).
Small claims court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to evict someone buying a house on contract; the property was worth more than $10,000 and the dispute was to ownership of the house.
NFI Interactive Logistics, LLC v. Bruski, No. 24S-CR-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 26, 2024).
Trial court properly denied TR 12(B)(6) motion; the complaint encompasses viable claims premised on the failure to warn after potentially contributing to a hazard on the road, and the failure to comply with the statute requiring driver to turn on emergency flashers and place warning devices behind his vehicle.
Foster v. First Merchants Bank, N.A., No. 24S-PL-75, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2024).
Even though plaintiff had not taken any action in a case for over a decade, because the defendant moved for dismissal under T.R. 41(E) after the plaintiff had resumed prosecution, the trial court improperly dismissed the case.