When home-buyer was by agreement not to be on home construction premises without permission, fact home-buyer had been on the premises numerous times and may have been seen then by contractor precluded summary judgment against home-buyer on her negligence claim for injuries suffered when she was on the construction site.
Civil
Brindle v. Arata, No. 02A05-1004-SC-239, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2010)
Student loan funds, exempt from garnishment under federal statute, retain their exempt status after deposit in the student’s bank account.
M.S. v. C.S., No. 03A01-1003-DR-140, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2010)
Child custody statute does not authorize a parent to obtain “joint custody with third parties by simply filing a joint petition with a trial court, because to do so would allow parents and third parties to circumvent the requirements of the Adoption Act.”
Forman v. Penn, No. 33A01-1007-CT-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2010)
When insurer intervened in tort suit and obtained summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim it had no duty to defend, without a Trial Rule 54 determination by the trial judge of “no just reason for delay” and “an express direction for the entry of judgment” there was no appealable final judgment on the duty to defend issue.
St. Joseph Hosp.. v. Cain, No. 02A05-1006-PL-386, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 24, 2010)
Failure to file a verified petition as required by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act does not deprive a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and is a “procedural error.” Further, AOPA’s verified petition requirement does not preclude a court promulgated rule, so that an amended petition relates back to the date of the filing of the original petition in accordance with Trial Rule 15.